There is no doubt that a strong intellectual property (IP) portfolio can offer an emerging business security from more established companies, as well as add value through which investment may be secured. In the fast moving realm of technology in particular, it is important to keep up or risk being left behind.Recently, we saw that Rubik’s Brand, the maker of the well-known multi-coloured cube, is suing the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over delays in a decision over its trademarking of the shape of its product. This has many people asking if our legal systems are falling behind the pace of innovation. Whilst delays at the ECJ are a concern, they need not be an impediment to protecting your innovations, not least because the ECJ, which interprets European law, is not normally involved in the vast majority of IP-related disputes in Europe. Those relating to patents, the primary tool for securing protection for inventions, are, for example, heard by national courts in Europe, without involvement of the ECJ. National courts can be a lot more efficient, with both the UK High Court and the smaller UK Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) aiming to resolve conflicts within 12 months. In Germany, first instance cases can last between six and 12 months. Final decisions are often achieved within 12-24 months. At present, court proceedings to stop the copying of inventions based on European patents must be brought at a national level. This can be an advantage given the speed of some national courts. However, this can also lead to situations in which litigation may be deliberately brought in slow courts. For instance, a copying party that suspects that it will be taken to court by a patent owner may try to tie any such court proceedings to a slow court by seeking a declaration from that court that there is, in fact, no copying taking place. One court system that is known to have been used for such a tactic is the Italian system, in which court proceedings can last over three years.
This is all due to change, however, with the Unified Patent Court (UPC) soon to come into effect. This will offer a centralised court for ruling on patent decisions across the whole of Europe. The UPC aims to set a strict timeline for all parties involved, and it is generally accepted that a first instance decision should be issued within 12 months. This can greatly reduce the uncertainty and expense caused by pending litigation spread across multiple courts and allows for speedy resolution, which is becoming more and more important given the increasing speed of technological progress. Nonetheless, before you can go to the courts to prevent someone from copying your invention, you must first file a patent application at the patent office of the jurisdiction in which you wish to obtain protection, and then have the application examined. Delays during the examination of patent applications are still relatively common, particularly for European patents filed at the central European Patent Office. Whilst the normal time to grant is between three and five years, the speed of examination can vary greatly across technology sectors and it is not unheard of for some European applications to take ten or even 15 years to be granted. Whilst delays of this nature are welcome in those industries in which time to market is very long – for example, due to long R&D times prevalent in parts of the pharmaceuticals industry – for small, rapidly growing companies, a granted patent can make all the difference when looking to secure much needed investment. In the UK in particular, the quick grant of a patent is desirable as a granted patent can allow a business to reduce its corporation tax payments by up to 50 per cent via HMRC’s Patent Box scheme. Read more on patents:
- The four companies suing or being sued on an industrial scale
- How Polaroid founder Edward Land changed the patent system to one we rely on today
- Intellectual Property rights and wrongs: Patents
Share this story