InjunctionsinEuropeanPatentLaw

Webinar4iPCouncil14May2019

2

Doesautomaticgrantofaninjunctionincaseofinfringementhavetobeputintoquestion?-  example:patentconcernedprotectsatechnology,whichperhapsisonlya

minorcomponentofamuchmorecomplexsystemà  potentialeffectoftheinjunction:stoppingthesystemasawholeà  Injunctiondisproportionate?

-  analysisfromastatutoryperspective

I. Introduction

3

TRIPs-  wantstoestablishcertainconvergenceintheenforcementofIP-rights-  acknowledgesthedifferencesofnationallegalsystems(preamble)-  Art.44para.1–Injunctions:“Thejudicialauthoritiesshallhavethe

authoritytoorderapartytodesistfromaninfringement[...].“à noproportionalityrequirementó otherArticlesspelloutproportionalityrequirement(i.e.Art.46TRIPs)

-  Art.41para.2-GeneralObligations:“fairandequitableproceduresconcerningtheenforcementofintellectualpropertyrights”à noproportionalityrequirementconcerningtheapplicationofthelaw

II.   Legalfoundations1. Internationalinstruments

4

TRIPsArt.30

ExceptionstoRightsConferredMembersmayprovidelimitedexceptionstotheexclusiverightsconferredbyapatent,providedthatsuchexceptionsdonotunreasonablyconflictwithanormalexploitationofthepatentanddonotunreasonablyprejudicethelegitimateinterestsofthepatentowner,takingaccountofthelegitimateinterestsofthirdparties.-  addressestheextentofthepatentasasubstantive(exclusivity)right-  concernslimitationsoftheright’sscope-  methodologicalargument:outsideofPartIIIonproceduralremedies

II.   Legalfoundations1. Internationalinstruments

5

EnforcementDirective

-  Art.11oninjunctionsdoesnotstipulateaproportionalityrequirement-  but:

Article3–Generalobligation2.Thosemeasures,proceduresandremediesshallalsobeeffective,proportionateanddissuasiveandshallbeappliedinsuchamannerastoavoidthecreationofbarrierstolegitimatetradeandtoprovideforsafeguardsagainsttheirabuse.-  however:certainprovisionsonremediesexplicitlyspelloutproportionality

requirement(i.e.Art.8(1),10(3))-  proportionalitymustbebalancedagainsteffectivenessanddissuasiveness

II.   Legalfoundations1. Internationalinstruments

6

EnforcementDirectiveArticle12

AlternativemeasuresMemberStatesmayprovidethat,inappropriatecasesandattherequestofthepersonliabletobesubjecttothemeasuresprovidedforinthissection,thecompetentjudicialauthoritiesmayorderpecuniarycompensationtobepaidtotheinjuredpartyinsteadofapplyingthemeasuresprovidedforinthissectionifthatpersonactedunintentionallyandwithoutnegligence,ifexecutionofthemeasuresinquestionwouldcausehim/herdisproportionateharmandifpecuniarycompensationtotheinjuredpartyappearsreasonablysatisfactory.ànogeneralproportionalityrequirementbutexemptionclausetargetingfaultlessbehavior

II.   Legalfoundations1. Internationalinstruments

7

a)PatentinjunctionsinGermany-  ifpreconditionsofSec.139PatentActarefulfilled,aninjunctionmustbe

granted-  injunctionisrootedinsubstantiveandnotprocedurallawinGermany-  nogeneralproportionalityrequirementmirroringArt.3(2)Enf.Dir.-  Art.12EnforcementDirectivenotimplemented-  however:goodfaithdefenseaccordingtoSec.242BGB-  BGH“Wärmetauscher”(grantingofagraceperiod):

•  highthresholdwasdefined•  necessaryconsequencethatinfringerhastoceaseproduction:‘Consequential

hardshipistobeaccepted’•  limitationontheeffectsofapatentonlyjustifiedincasesof‘intolerable

hardship’(Unzumutbarkeit)•  specificcase:graceperiodnotgranted

II.   Legalfoundations2. Europeanpatentlaws-overview

8

b)PatentinjunctionsinUK-  remedysuchasinjunctionisanapplicationofthelawofequity-  UKdidnotimplement12EnforcementDirective-  UKcourtsseethemselvesasauthorizedonbasisoftheirequitynotto

grantaninjunctionforreasonsondisproportionality-  However,onlyforrareandexceptionalcases-  EWHCinNavitaire:“[…]thattheeffectofthegrantoftheinjunctionwould

begrosslydisproportionatetotherightprotected,theword‘grossly’avoidsanysuggestionthatallthathastobedoneistostrikeabalanceofconvenience.”

II.   Legalfoundations2. Europeanpatentlaws-overview

9

c)PatentinjunctionsinFrance-  injunctionisaremedyasofright,willsystematicallyfollowafindingof

infringement-  injunctivereliefconsideredanaturalconsequenceoffindinginfringement-  infringersmustbesanctionedforthesimplefactthattheyhaveinfringed-  Art.12EnforcementDirectivenotimplementedinFrenchlaw-  Injunctivereliefdeniedintwoscenarios:

•  competitionlawdefense•  abuseofrightsdefenseforinstitutinglegalproceedings

II.   Legalfoundations2. Europeanpatentlaws-overview

10

d)PatentinjunctionsunderUPCA

Article63Permanentinjunctions

1.Whereadecisionistakenfindinganinfringementofapatent,theCourtmaygrantaninjunctionagainsttheinfringeraimedatprohibitingthecontinuationoftheinfringement.TheCourtmayalsograntsuchinjunctionagainstanintermediarywhoseservicesarebeingusedbyathirdpartytoinfringeapatent.

àliteralimplementationofArt.11EnforcementDirective

II.   Legalfoundations2. Europeanpatentlaws-overview

11

d)PatentinjunctionsunderUPCAArt.63–Noproceduraldiscretion-  reflectstheContinentalEuropeanviewthatproceduralorderofan

injunctionisresultofasubstantivecease-and-desistclaim-  ruleequalingArt.12EnforcementDirectivehasbeendeletedfromdraft

RoP-  noproceduraldiscretionofjudgesnottograntaninjunction-  counterargumentsmustthereforebeassertedundersubstantivelaw-  Discretionbecauseofwording“maygrant”?Predominantopinion:No-  wording‘may’isunderstoodastogiveUPClegalauthority(power)togrant

cease-and-desistorder-  defendanthasenoughopportunitytoargueontheawardofthe

substantiveclaim

II.   Legalfoundations2. Europeanpatentlaws-overview

12

d)PatentinjunctionsunderUPCAArt.63–NogeneralsubstantivelawdefenseofdisproportionalityLegalbasisofceaseanddesistclaim:

Article5EPUE-Reg.– Uniformprotection1.  TheEuropeanpatentwithunitaryeffectshallconferonitsproprietortherightto

preventanythirdpartyfromcommittingactsagainstwhichthatpatentprovidesprotectionthroughouttheterritoriesoftheparticipatingMemberStatesinwhichithasunitaryeffect,subjecttoapplicablelimitations.[…]

Art.25UPCA–RighttopreventthedirectuseoftheinventionApatentshallconferonitsproprietortherighttopreventanythirdpartynothavingtheproprietor'sconsentfromthefollowing:(a)making,offering,placingonthemarketorusingaproductwhichisthesubject-matterofthepatent,orimportingorstoringtheproductforthosepurposes;.[…]

II.   Legalfoundations2. Europeanpatentlaws-overview

13

d)PatentinjunctionsunderUPCAArt.63–Nogeneralsubstantivelawdefenseofdisproportionality(LegalbasisofceaseanddesistclaimArt.5EPUE-Reg.,Art.25UPCA)

-  noexplicitproportionalityrequirement-  fallbackonapplicablenationallawpossibleaccordingtoArt.24lit.eand

(2)UPCAtoraiseproportionalitydefense?-  No,UPCAandEPUEarecomprehensiveonproportionality:

•  Art.3(2)EnforcementDirectiveapplicable,butonlygeneralstandard•  UPCAexplicitlyaddressesproportionalityforspecificremedies:i.e.

Art.60,62,68•  draftersoftheUPCAtookadeliberatechoicenottoinclude

proportionalityrequirementinArt.63oninjunctions-  goodfaithdefensebasedonapplicablenationallawstillpossible

II.   Legalfoundations2. Europeanpatentlaws-overview

14

-  generalproportionalityassessmentcouldseverelydisturbbalanceofthepatentsystemasawhole

-  patentsystemfoundedonideaofpublicationoftheinventionversusgrantofatemporarymonopoly

-  patentlawsclearlydescribescopeandrestrictionsofexclusivityright-  injunctioniscentraltoeffectiveenforcement-  injunctionhasveryhighdeterrentpotential

III.   Opinion1. Systematicargument

15

-  proportionalityrequirementwouldequalanunwrittenrestrictionofpatentrightassuch

-  wouldmirroracompulsorylicense-  massivedangertolegalcertainty-  deliberatechoiceofthelegislatortobalancetheinterestsconcerned

wouldbeatrisk-  competitorscanattackpatentinoppositionandnullityproceedings

à  delegelata,nosufficientlegalbasisforproportionalityrequirementà  explicitcodificationbylegislatorrequiredà  definitionofstrict/highstandardspreferable

III.   Opinion1. Systematicargument

16

Article13Know-how-DirectiveConditionsofapplication,safeguardsandalternativemeasures

1.MemberStatesshallensurethat,inconsideringanapplicationfortheadoptionoftheinjunctionsandcorrectivemeasuresprovidedforinArticle12andassessingtheirproportionality,thecompetentjudicialauthoritiesshallberequiredtotakeintoaccountthespecificcircumstancesofthecase,including,whereappropriate:(a)  thevalueorotherspecificfeaturesofthetradesecret;(b)  themeasurestakentoprotectthetradesecret;(c)  theconductoftheinfringerinacquiring,usingordisclosingthetradesecret;(d)  theimpactoftheunlawfuluseordisclosureofthetradesecret;(e)  thelegitimateinterestsofthepartiesandtheimpactwhichthegrantingor

rejectionofthemeasurescouldhaveontheparties;(f)  thelegitimateinterestsofthirdparties;(g)  thepublicinterest;and(h)  thesafeguardoffundamentalrights.

III.   Opinion2. Comparisontoknow-how

17

Article13Know-how-Directive(Sec9GovernmentalDraftTradeSecretAct)

-  ruleworksasanexception-  criteriaforproportionalityassessmentarespelledout-  Whyproportionalityhereandnotwithrespecttopatentinjunctions?

•  natureoftherights:know-howisnofullfledgedIP-right•  objectofprotectionisthefactthatinformationissecretnot

informationitself•  aimistopreventinformationfrombeingleakedtogeneralpublic•  differentinterestsinproportionalityassessment

-  perspectiveoftheinfringer:thereisnopublicregister,sodifficulttocheckwhetherknowledgehasbeenlegallyobtainedàhigherriskoffaultlessinfringement

III.   Opinion2. Comparisontoknow-how

18

-  internationalinstrumentsdonotprescribespecificproportionalityrequirementforinjunctions

-  standardsforproportionalitydefenseundernationallaws(goodfaith/equity)veryhigh

-  UPCAsilentonproportionalityofinjunctions-  generalproportionalityassessmentcouldseverelydisturbpatentsystemas

awhole-  delegelatanosufficientlegalbasis-  wouldthereforerequireexplicitcodificationwithhighstandards-  seeArt.13Know-how-Directive/Sec.9GovernmentalDraftTradeSecrets

Act

IV. Conclusion

Thankyou!