Patent Enforcement: A Comparative Review Preventing Patent Trolling in Europe

Benjamin FRANCO; Cristian BANACU

doi:10.35219/mms.2018.3.09

Benjamin FRANCO Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania
Cristian BANACU Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35219/mms.2018.3.09

Keywords: patent trolls, US patent laws, intellectual property, differences between EU and US laws on Intellectual PropertyNon-Practicing Entities, Intellectual PropertyNon-Practicing Entities in Europe and the United States

Abstract

The US has made significant progress in the patent legislation landscape as evidenced by the US Patent Act in the Constitution and America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011. Nevertheless, patent suits by non-practicing entities (NPEs) have been on the increase over the past ten years. Major corporations, especially, such as Apple and Samsung have been on the receiving end of the litigation as NPEs target their large cash holdings. A closer look at the patent laws in the US and Europe reveals subtle differences in the grace period, publication of patent, and the application of patent rights across member states. Given the preceding facts, vital action points for the European market include the enactment of laws that prevent patent trolls as opposed to punishing NPEs after the act and reduction of litigation costs for lowquality patents.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1]. Helmers C., McDonagh L., Patent litigation in the UK: An empirical survey 2000–2008, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, p. 846-861, 2013.
[2]. Cohen L., Gurun U. G., Kominers S. D., The growing problem of patent trolling, Journal of Science, p. 521-522, doi:10.1126/science.aad2686, 2016.
[3]. Bessen J. E., Meurer M. J., The direct costs from NPE disputes. Boston Univ. School of Law, Law and Economics Research Paper, no. 12-34, p. 1-59, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2091210, 2012.
[4]. Śledzik K., Patent trolls and Schumpeter's creative destruction, SSRN Electronic Journal, p. 89-96, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2424943, 2014.
[5]. Cremers K., Ernicke M., Gaessler F., Harhoff D., Helmers C., McDonagh L., Zeebroeck N., Patent litigation in Europe, European Journal of Law and Economics, p. 1–44, doi:10.1007/s10657-016-9529-0, 2017.
[6]. Gates C., Patenting the life sciences at the European patent office, Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine, p. 212-221, doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a020792, 2014.
[7]. ***, AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2013, Arlington: American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), 2013.
[8]. Murphy A., Stramiello M., Lewis S., Irving T., Introduction to intellectual property: A U.S. perspective, Cold Spring Harbor Perspective Medicine, p. 1-15, doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a020776, 2015.
[9]. Hovenkamp H. J., The emergence of classical American patent law, Retrieved November 5, 2018, from Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository, 2016.
[10]. Lewis G., Opinion: Racing toward invention, The Scientist, p. 26-34. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a026765, 2013.
[11]. Kahnert M., Inside views: Introduction of a grace period in Europe, Retrieved November 5, 2018.
[12]. ***, Europe Economic, The economic analysis of the grace period, Web: Europe Patent Office, 2014.
[13]. ***, USPTO, General information concerning patents, Retrieved November 5, 2018, from United States Patent and Trademark Office, 2018.
[14]. Cowan R., Eijik W. V., Lissoni F., Lotz P., OverWalle G. V., Schosvbo J., Policy options for the improvement of the European patent system, Retrieved November 5, 2018, from Scietific Techonolgy Options Assessment.
[15]. ***, EPO, Guide for applicants: How to get a European patent, Retrieved November 5, 2018, from EPO.