Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « Brevet européen à effet unitaire »

Après dix ans, le paquet brevet unitaire est entré en vigueur le 1 er juin dernier ; c’est une révolution dans le domaine des brevets en Europe. Nouvel outil à la disposition des déposants à l’issue de la procédure de délivrance, le brevet européen à effet unitaire constitue une aubaine économique et amène une simplification administrative. Sa mise en œuvre se fait exclusivement devant la nouvelle Juridiction unifiée du brevet, permettant au titulaire de faire respecter ses droits à l’échelle pan-européenne. Il ne s’agit toutefois pas du « nouveau » brevet européen : il est optionnel, ne couvre qu’une partie de l’UE, présente un coût fixe qui ne convient pas à toutes les stratégies, et dépend d’une juridiction doit encore faire ses preuves.

Abstract: The European field of intellectual property law is on the brink of exciting changes as the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the European Patent with unitary effect may soon see the light of day. This will have significant consequences for the protection of technological innovations that patents provide. This article offers an introductory overview to the envisaged European patent landscape. The desire for harmonization in patent law is nothing new but prior attempts were unsuccessful: as a result, the current regime is characterized by fragmentation. The article gives a high-level explanation of this regime and the proposed changes that the advent of the UPC would entail. The authors also address recent challenges facing the new patent regime, which make it difficult to predict when the proposed changes will take effect. Assuming these hurdles can be overcome, the UPC and the European Patent with unitary effect offer a fascinating experiment in legal pluralism. This is shown by explaining the roles of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the UPC and national courts in the new patent landscape. These courts will share jurisdiction and will jointly work towards a (truly) harmonized European patent law. The authors conclude that though the new constellation will be complex, European courts have previously shown capable of working together toward legal unification in a pluralist order and that this new attempt in the field of patent law should thus be welcomed. Résumé: Le domaine européen du droit de propriété intellectuelle, en particulier du droit des brevets, prévoit des changes importants avec l’arrivée prévue de la juridiction unifiée du brevet (en Anglais: UPC). Cet article offre une vue générale de ce nouvelle configuration du droit européen des brevets. D’abord, on montre que la nécessité d’une protection harmonisée des brevets n’est pas du tout nouvelle, mais que jusqu’ici des efforts antérieurs n’ont pas réussi. Cela a causé un régime des brevets européen fragmenté. Ensuite, l’article explique en détail ce régime européen des brevets actuel et les changements causés par la venue de la juridiction unifiée du brevet. Les auteurs mentionnent aussi deux grands défis que la nouvelle configuration du droit des brevets rencontre actuellement. Grâce aux défis, il est difficile à prédire quand les changements proposés auront effet. Cet article montre que, en supposant que la juridiction unifiée du brevet et le brevet unitaire verraient le jour, ils offriront une expérience intéressante du pluralisme juridique. Cela est montré par une analyse des rapports entre la cour de justice de l’union européenne, la juridiction unifiée du brevet et les cours nationaux dans la nouvelle configuration du droit européen des brevets. Ces cours partageront la juridiction et travailleront ensemble vers l’harmonisation du droit européen des brevets. Les auteurs prouvent que, malgré les innombrables complexités que cet exercice va rencontrer ont peut garder de la confiance en cette initiative, parce qu’on a vu auparavant que les cours européens sont capables de collaborer à une unification juridique dans un ordre juridique européen pluraliste.

La Juridiction unifiée du brevet (JUB), une nouvelle juridiction internationale spécialisée dans le contentieux des brevets européens, est soumise au respect du droit de l’Union européenne. Ce dernier, toutefois, demeure éparpillé et incomplet en matière de la procédure civile. La question du rôle effectif de la CJUE dans l’interprétation des règles procédurales de la JUB représente un intérêt majeur. Or, l’analyse approfondie des règles européennes et celles propres à la JUB conduisent au constat que ce rôle demeure à ce jour limité. L’absence de renforcement du rôle de la CJUE conduit à un risque de l’incohérence du droit de l’UE, de son application non uniforme ainsi que, de point de vue stratégique, à un forum shopping prononcé réduisant l’attractivité de la nouvelle juridiction spécialisée. Pour remédier à cette situation, la thèse suggère une série des propositions visant à renforcer le rôle de la CJUE en la matière, tantôt à travers des instruments horizontaux que spéciaux
The Unified Patent Court, a new international jurisdiction specializing in European patent litigation, is subject to European Union law. European Union law, however, remains scattered and incomplete when it comes to civil procedure. The question of the CJEU's effective role in interpreting the UPC's procedural rules is of major interest. However, an in-depth analysis of the European rules and those specific to the UPC leads to the conclusion that this role remains limited to date. The failure to strengthen the role of the CJEU leads to a risk of inconsistency in EU law and its non-uniform application, as well as, from a strategic point of view, to pronounced forum shopping, reducing the attractiveness of the new specialized jurisdiction. To remedy this situation, the thesis suggests a series of proposals aimed at strengthening the CJEU's role in this area, both through horizontal and special instruments

Tribunale unificato dei brevetti e brevetto europeo con effetto unitario: giurisdizione e legge applicabile. Oggetto del presente elaborato è il pacchetto normativo costituito dall’accordo internazionale n. 2013/C 175/01 sul tribunale unificato dei brevetti, dal regolamento UE n. 542/14, che ha modificato il regolamento n. 1215/12 (c.d. Bruxelles I-bis) e dai regolamenti UE n. 1257/12 e n. 1260/12 sul brevetto europeo con effetto unitario e sul relativo regime di traduzione; con specifico riferimento alle tematiche della giurisdizione del tribunale unificato e della legge applicabile. Si tratta di due temi tradizionali in materia di tutela interstatale dei diritti, che tuttavia assumono nell’ambito della nuova regolamentazione connotati del tutto innovativi ed originali, funzionali ad assicurare una protezione uniforme delle invenzioni in Europa. La riforma introduce un titolo brevettuale con effetto unitario (peraltro limitato ad alcuni soltanto degli Stati dell’Unione europea) e realizza una maggiore uniformità anche rispetto agli esistenti brevetti europei senza effetto unitario. L’uniformità viene realizzata sul piano giurisdizionale rimettendo una porzione prevalente del contenzioso alla cognizione esclusiva di un tribunale unificato. Alle autorità nazionali degli Stati aderenti all’accordo rimane una competenza solo residuale, che attiene principalmente alla materia contrattuale, agli aspetti proprietari, e alla reazione agli abusi del titolare del brevetto. Oltretutto la riforma, modificando il regolamento Bruxelles I-bis, attribuisce al tribunale unificato dei brevetti una giurisdizione estesa potenzialmente anche al di fuori dei confini degli Stati aderenti all’accordo istitutivo del tribunale medesimo. Anche sul binario della legge applicabile il pacchetto realizza una maggiore uniformità di trattamento, assoggettando il brevetto europeo con effetto unitario e il brevetto europeo senza effetto unitario a una disciplina uniforme degli effetti e delle limitazioni del diritto di brevetto, che va ad aggiungersi alle norme uniformi in materia di validità e di interpretazione del brevetto previste dalla CBE. La riforma lascia ancora tuttavia diversi spazi alla legislazione nazionale, in relazione alla tutela della domanda, alle invenzioni dei dipendenti e su commessa, agli aspetti proprietari del brevetto, ai diritti di preuso, alle licenze obbligatorie, alla disciplina del concorso e della responsabilità solidale (che non assurgano a contraffazione indiretta), nonché alla tutela penale. Il pacchetto normativo realizza dunque un passo in avanti rilevante rispetto al passato per il brevetto europeo senza effetto unitario, mentre a confronto il passo appare scarso per il brevetto europeo con effetto unitario, a causa della porzione probabilmente eccessiva di disciplina e di giurisdizione lasciate per quest’ultimo alla dimensione nazionale. Terminato il periodo transitorio, la scelta tra i due titoli sembra dunque essenzialmente rimessa a una comparazione dei costi, rapportata ai territori di interesse per la tutela brevettuale. Occorre peraltro notare che il referendum inglese sulla Brexit ha gettato un’ombra di incertezza sul futuro del pacchetto: sulla base del testo attuale, l’accordo non consente la partecipazione del Regno Unito al sistema dopo il recesso dall’UE, ma il Regno Unito ha dichiarato di voler comunque aderire. La possibilità di modificare l’accordo in modo da aprirsi all’adesione di Stati non europei o comunque di consentire la permanenza in esso di Stati che perdano la qualifica di Stato membro dell’UE pone seri dubbi di compatibilità con i Trattati istitutivi alla luce del parere n. 1/09 della Corte di giustizia, rispetto al quale tuttavia le opinioni non sono concordi. Non è neppure scontato che una volontà politica in tal senso sussista in capo a tutte le parti in gioco. Il futuro del brevetto con effetto unitario e del tribunale unificato è quindi ancora incerto.
Unified Patent Court and European Patent with unitary effect: jurisdiction and applicable law. This study examines the “UP-UPC package” (agreement no. 2013/C 175/01 on the unified patent court, EU Reg. no. 542/14, which amended EU reg. no. 1215/12 Bruxelles I-bis, and EU Reg. no. 1257/12 and no. 1260/12 on the european patent with unitary effect); with regard to jurisdiction and applicable law, both relevant matters in the light of pursuing a more uniform protection of inventions in Europe. Uniformity is pursued by the package for both the european patent with unitary effect and the already existing european patent without unitary effect, by devolving most portion of litigation to the exclusive competence of the unified patent court. National courts’ competence will thus become residual, mainly referring to contract law, proprietary aspects, and patent holder’s abuse. Furthermore, by amending EU Reg. Bruxelles I-bis, the package confers to the unified patent court a long-arm jurisdiction potentially extended over the territories of countries which are not part of the UPC agreement. With regard to applicable law, the package introduces some uniform rules (applicable not only to european patent with unitary effect, but also to the “traditional” european patent without unitary effect) regarding patent infringement and limitations, which add to the unirofm rules on patent validty and interpretation set forth by the EPC widely extending the scope of the uniform protection. Many areas however will continue to be regulated by national laws, more specifically the matters related to patent application’s enforcement, employees’ inventions, proprietary aspects, prior use, compulsory licenses, joint liability and criminal sanctions. In the light of the above, it appears that the package achieves a sensitive improvement for the european patent without unitary effect, in terms of uniformity of protection. On the other hand, the step forward seems quite limited with regard to the european patent with unitary effect, as too many areas will be left to national law and jurisdiction. Under the new regulation, the protection granted by “old” european patents without unitary effect will not be much different than that assured by “new” patents with unitary effect. Therefore, after the expiration of the transitory period, the patentees’ choice between the two option will essentially depend on a comparison of costs taking into consideration the territories where they seek protection. It is to be noted that entry into force of the package is still at risk after the UK referendum on Brexit. The UPC agreement (at least, the version currently under ratification) prevents non-EU countries from joining the package, but notwistanding this circumstance, the UK Government recently announced that the UK will ratify the UPC agreement. Wether the agreement can be amended in that non-EU countries can be part of it, or in that previous EU countries can continue to be part of it, is a disputed matter, as the Court of Justice stated in opinion n. 1/09 that the previous version of the agreement (which was open to non-EU countries participation) was not compliant with EU treaties. This interpretation of op. 1/09 is not shared by all, and the matter is still unclear. Moreover, it is not clear if there would event be the necessary consensus among the member states to such amendment of the agreement. The future of the UP-UPC package is therefore still uncertain.