European patent law
The EPO is a public international organisation established by the European Patent Convention (EPC).
Alternatively, an international application may be filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and later nationalised in the desired countries or at the EPO.
However, Belgium, Cyprus, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, and Slovenia have "closed their national route" meaning that it is no longer possible to nationalise an international application in those countries directly and protection can only be obtained via the EPO.
If the translation is not filed, the European patent is deemed to have no effect from the outset in that state.
[7] The London Agreement, which entered into force on May 1, 2008, significantly reduces the number of required translations in the states that are party to it.
After the unitary European examination and opposition phase ends, nearly all "unitary" nature of the European patent dissolves, and what remains is a collection of essentially-independent national patents, and ownership, validity and infringement of each being determined independently under respective national law.
In Europe, utility models are available in Austria (Gebrauchsmuster), France ("certificat d'utilité"), Germany ("Gebrauchsmuster"), Italy ("modello di utilità"), Finland ("hyödyllisyysmalli"), Denmark ("brugsmodel"), Russia ("Полезная модель") and Spain[15] (this list is however non-exhaustive).
Substantive patent law has been harmonized to a certain extent across national laws in Europe, notably upon signature of the Strasbourg Convention of 1963 and the European Patent Convention (EPC) of 1973, and upon entry into force of the TRIPs Agreement.
For instance, while in Germany validity and infringement of patents are examined by different courts in different procedures (in a so-called "bifurcation system"), in the United Kingdom the same court is in charge of examining validity and infringement actions.
According to Mr Justice Kitchin, a British judge, In other words, the German bifurcation system is often regarded as favouring the patentee.
[17] In this respect, Lord Justice Jacob referred to a comparison reportedly made by Professor Mario Franzosi between a patentee and an Angora cat: The German patent system is, however, "particularly appealing for a large number of users", notably because it is regarded as relatively quick and affordable.
Based on data from Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the UK, the Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW) found that German courts handle by far the largest number of patent litigation cases.
