Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inventor

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Dictionary of Statuses within EU Law

  • 561 Accesses

Abstract

Patent law has a profound effect on the status of inventors. Patents grant their right holders with a bundle of rights which fundamentally shape the status of inventors. EU law has had lesser impact on patent law compared to other fields of intellectual property (IP). There are no unitary patent rights within the EU as in trade marks and designs but the Unitary Patent Package (UPP) launched in 2012 aims at creating so-called patents with unitary effect and the creation of a Unified Patent court. Areas where EU law has had effect on the status of inventors are limited to issues, such as biotechnological inventions, the enforcement of patent rights and the creation of supplementary protection measures. In addition, the EU has recently been active in the field of trade secrets which has ramifications for inventors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Article 60 (1) EPC.

  2. 2.

    In addition, some jurisdictions provide inventor with protection through utility models or petty patents.

  3. 3.

    Though all EU member states are Contracting states of the EPC. Switzerland, Norway and Turkey are, for instance, contracting states of the EPC.

  4. 4.

    See Articles 64(1), 79 EPC.

  5. 5.

    Subsection (3) of Article 65 states expressis verbis that “[a]ny infringement of a European patent shall be dealt with by national law.” However, an opposition proceeding however may be launched after the grant of the patent before the EPO.

  6. 6.

    However, the substantive provisions of the Community Patent Convention with regards to post-grant phase of patents, such as the rules on infringement were adopted in many national patent laws of EU member states.

  7. 7.

    This was an amended version of the CPC 1975 and was envisaged as an international agreement and was signed on 15.12 1989 again in Luxembourg, 1989 89/695/EEC, OJ EEC L 401, 30.12.1989, 1–27. Similarly to the CPC 1975 this Agreement failed to enter into force.

  8. 8.

    The prime example for this are the so-called “Epilady” cases.

  9. 9.

    EPLA foresaw “the establishment of a highly specialized, semi-centralized European Patent Court having exclusive jurisdiction over litigation concerning the revocation and the infringement of the European bundle patent”.

  10. 10.

    A consensus was established to generally apply the three official languages of the EPO—English, French and German.

  11. 11.

    Council Decision 2011/167/EU of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 53).

  12. 12.

    Joined Cases C-274/11 and C-295/11 Spain and Italy v Council. Italy eventually ratified the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court.

  13. 13.

    Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (UP Regulation).

  14. 14.

    Council Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements.

  15. 15.

    Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, <https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc-agreement.pdf.>

  16. 16.

    UP Regulation, Recital 5.

  17. 17.

    Article 89 UPC Agreement.

  18. 18.

    Kluwer Patent Blog (2017) German complaint against Unified Patent Court Agreement: deadline for submitting views is end of October. http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2017/09/12/german-complaint-unified-patent-court-agreement-deadline-submitting-views-end-october/. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.

  19. 19.

    Directive 98/44/EC for Biotechnological Inventions (1998).

  20. 20.

    European Commission (1988) A European Patent Law for Biotechnology. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_P-88-111_en.htm. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.

  21. 21.

    Administrative Council Decision, OJ EPO 7/1999, pp. 437–440.

  22. 22.

    Article 3(2) Biotech Directive.

  23. 23.

    Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV (C-34/10) [2012] 1 C.M.L.R. 41.

  24. 24.

    Case C-364/13 International Stem Cell Corporation v. Comptroller General of Patents.

  25. 25.

    Article 19(1) TEU.

  26. 26.

    Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products and Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products.

  27. 27.

    Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, Recital 3; Regulation (EC) No 1610/96, Recital 3.

  28. 28.

    Article 63 EPC was subsequently amended in order to take account of SPCs.

  29. 29.

    Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, Article 13; Regulation (EC) No 1610/96, Article 13.

  30. 30.

    Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

  31. 31.

    Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (Trade Secrets Directive).

  32. 32.

    Article 2(2) Trade Secrets Directive.

References

  • Arnold, R. (2013). An overview of European harmonization measures in intellectual property law. In A. Ohly & J. Pila (Eds.), The Europeanization of intellectual property law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker and Mackenzie. (2013). Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market. MARKT/2010/20/D, p. 2. Retrieved January 15, 2018, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016L0943&from=EN

  • Bently, L., & Sherman, B. (2014). Intellectual property law (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bonadio, E. (2012). Stem cells industry and beyond: What is the aftermath of Brüstle? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 3, 93–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellyne, E. (2014). European unitary patent: Are we there yet? Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 4, 57–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, M. (2007). Fundamentals of patent law - Interpretation and scope of protection. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluwer Patent Blog. (2017). German complaint against Unified Patent Court Agreement: Deadline for submitting views is end of October. Retrieved January 15, 2018, from http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2017/09/12/german-complaint-unified-patent-court-agreement-deadlinesubmitting-views-end-october/

  • Krieger, A. (1988). The Luxembourg Convention on the Community Patent – A challenge and a duty. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 19, 143–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massa, C.-H., & Strowel, A. (2004). The scope of the proposed IP Enforcement Directive: Torn between the desire to harmonise remedies and the need to combat piracy. EIPR, 26, 244–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonagh, L., & Mimler, M. (2017). Intellectual property law and Brexit: A retreat or a reaffirmation of jurisdiction? In M. Dougan (Ed.), The UK after Brexit – Legal and policy challenges. Cambridge: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordberg, A., & Minssen, T. (2016). A ray of hope for European stem cell patents or out of the smog into the fog? An analysis of recent European Case Law and how it compares to the US. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 47, 138–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagenberg, J. (2012). Die EU-Patentrechtsreform – zurück auf Los? Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, 6, 582–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullrich, H. (2012). Harmonizing Patent Law: The Untameable Patent Union. Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper, 12-03. Available at SSRN. Retrieved March 12, 2018, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027920

  • Wadlow, C. (2010). Strasbourg, the forgotten patent convention, and the origins of the European patent jurisdiction. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 41, 124–149.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM), Bournemouth University, Poole, UK

    Marc Mimler

Authors
  1. Marc Mimler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Mimler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Antonio Bartolini

  2. Department of Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Roberto Cippitani

  3. National Research Council, IFAC Institute, Sesto Fiorentino, Firenze, Italy

    Valentina Colcelli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mimler, M. (2019). Inventor. In: Bartolini, A., Cippitani, R., Colcelli, V. (eds) Dictionary of Statuses within EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00554-2_42

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00554-2_42

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00553-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00554-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation