Protection heterogeneity in a harmonized European patent system

Author:

Zingg Raphael,Elsner Erasmus

Abstract

AbstractThis study proposes a divergent expectation model for patent infringement disputes, where both litigation and settlement are driven by patent quality. Under the model, patent quality depends on both broadness and definiteness of the patent. The model predicts that technologies where the definiteness attribute can be estimated with high accuracy will have higher settlement rates. At trial, it is rather the assessment of the patent quality by the judge which decides the outcome. In its empirical section, the paper evaluates over a thousand hand-collected and hand-coded patent infringement and counterclaim decisions rendered by courts in the three largest patent granting European countries—Germany, France and the United Kingdom. The paper utilizes empirical methods to investigate whether the characteristics of the patents or the country of litigation predict the outcome of litigation. Examination of the patent characteristics is guided by the factors of our model, in that the patent quality, and underlying technology and industry are tested. The findings provide evidence of the continuing heterogeneity of the patent systems in Europe, despite the harmonization efforts. Demonstrated was the lack of importance of the characteristics of the litigated patent; rather, it was the forum to which the case was brought that was decisive. At the dawn of the Unified Patent Court, our study provides for a window into the extent of heterogeneity still prevailing and a starting point for monitoring the further development of European patent harmonization.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Law,Economics and Econometrics,Business and International Management

Reference66 articles.

1. Alesina, A., Ignazio, A., & Ludger, S. (2005). What does the European Union do? Public Choice, 123, 275–319.

2. Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., & Schwartz, D. (2015). Our divided patent system. University of Chicago Law Review, 82, 1073.

3. Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A., & Trunkey, R. D. (2004). Valuable patents. Georgetown Law Journal, 92, 435.

4. Baldan, F., & Van Zimmeren, E. (2015). The future role of the unified patent court in safeguarding coherence in the European patent system. Common Market Law Review, 52, 1529–1577.

5. Bender, G. (2000). Clash of the titans: The territoriality of patent law vs. the European Union. IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology, 40, 49–82.

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3