Abstract
A patent opposition allows third parties to question the validity of the patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) on the grounds that they do not meet patentability criteria, do not fully disclose the invention, or extend beyond the original application. These issues are debated before an Opposition Division and, eventually, a Board of Appeal of the EPO which decides whether opposed patents are upheld as granted, amended, or revoked. The evidence indicates that these three possible outcomes are equally probable. Since the EPO decision applies to all the states designed in the application, the patent opposition represents a unique opportunity for challenging a patent’s validity at European-wide level. Along with their relatively lower costs, this explains why, in Europe, patent oppositions are used by far more frequently than patent litigation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Archontopoulos E, Guellec D, de la Van Pottelsberge PB, Van Zeebroeck N (2007) When small is beautiful: measuring the evolution and consequences of the voluminosity of patent applications at the EPO. Inf Econ Policy 19:103–132
Caviggioli F, Scellato G, Ughetto E (2013) International patent disputes: evidence from oppositions at the European Patent Office. Res Policy 42:1634–1646
Cincera M (2011) Déterminants des oppositions de brevets. Une analyse microéconomique au niveau belge. Rev Econ 62:87–99
Cremers K, Schliessler P (2015) Patent litigation settlement in Germany: why parties settle during trial. Eur J Law Econ. 40:185–208
Cremers K, Ernicke M, Gaessler F, Harhoff D, Helmers C, McDonagh L, Schliessler P, van Zeebroeck N (2013) Patent litigation in Europe. ZEW discussion paper no 13–072. http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp13072.pdf
de Saint-Georges M, de la van Pottelsberghe PB (2013) A quality index for patent systems. Res Policy 42:704–719
EPO (2006) Assessment of the impact of the European patent litigation agreement (EPLA) on litigation of European patents. Report of the European Patent Office acting as secretary of the Working Party on Litigation. http://www.eplaw.org/Downloads/EPLA_Impact_Assessment_2006_.pdf
EPO (2013) Patent litigation in Europe, 3rd edn. European Patent Academy, Munich
Farrell J, Merges P (2004) Incentives to challenge and defend patents: why litigation won’t really fix patent office errors and why administrative patent review might help. Berkeley Technol Law J 19:1–28
Graham S, Harhoff D (2006) Can post-grant reviews improve patent system design? A twin study of US and European patents. CEPR discussion papers no 5680. http://www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP5680.asp
Graham S, van Zeebroeck N (2014) Comparing patent litigation across Europe: a first look. Stanf Technol Law Rev 17:655–708
Graham S, Hall B, Harhoff D, Mowery D (2003) Patent quality control: a comparative study of US patent reexaminations and European patent oppositions. In: Cohen W, Merril S (eds) Patents in the knowledge-based economy. The National Academic Press, Washington, DC, pp 74–119
Hall B, Harhoff D (2004) Post-grant reviews in the U.S. patent system – design, choices and expected impact. Berkeley Technol Law J 19:989–1015
Harhoff D (2005) The battle for patent rights. In: Peeters C, de la van Pottelsberghe PB (eds) Economic and management perspectives on intellectual property rights. Palgrave-Macmillan, London, pp 21–39
Harhoff D, Reitzig M (2004) Determinants of oppositions against EPO patent grants: the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Int J Ind Organ 22:443–480
Harhoff D, Scherer F, Vopel K (2003) Citations, family size, opposition and value of patent rights. Res Policy 32:1343–1363
Kingston W (2004) Making patents useful to small firms. Intellect Prop Q 4:369–378
Lanjouw J, Schankerman M (2001) Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition. RAND J Econ 32:129–151
Lanjouw J, Schankerman M (2004) Protecting intellectual property rights: are small firms handicapped? J Law Econ 48:45–74
Lazaridis G, de la van Pottelsberghe PB (2007) The rigour of EPO’s patentability criteria. World Patent Inf 29:317–326
Mejer M, de la van Pottelsberghe PB (2012) Economic incongruities in the European patent system. Eur J Law Econ 41:215–234
Rotstein F, Dent C (2009) Third-party patent challenges in Europe, the United States and Australia: a comparative analysis. J World Intellect Prop 12:467–499
Schettino F, Sterlacchini A (2009) Reaping the benefits of patenting activities: does the size of patentees matters? Ind Innov 16:613–633
Schneider C (2011) The battle for patent rights in plant biotechnology: evidence from opposition filings. J Technol Transfer 36:565–579
van Zeebroeck N (2011) The puzzle of patent value indicators. Econ Innov New Technol 20:33–62
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this entry
Cite this entry
Sterlacchini, A. (2015). Patent Opposition. In: Backhaus, J. (eds) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_522-3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_522-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7883-6
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences
Publish with us
Chapter history
-
Latest
Patent Opposition- Published:
- 07 October 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_522-3
-
Patent Opposition
- Published:
- 30 January 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_522-2
-
Original
Patent Opposition- Published:
- 20 June 2014
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_522-1