Expert Analysis

• Determining Whether To Opt Out Of New Unified Patent Court

  

  The new United Patent Court, made up of judges from all European Union member states, will cover the new unitary patent and European patents unless the owner chooses to opt out during the transition period, so patent proprietors must consider whether to opt out for each patent family, say Steffen Steininger and Anna-Katharina Friese-Okoro at Hogan Lovells.

• 10 Things To Know About The Coming EU Unified Patent Court

  

  When the Unified Patent Court opens next year, it will represent a paradigm shift for adversarial patent proceedings in Europe, and practitioners should familiarize themselves now with this new, centralized litigation system, say Fabian Koenigbauer at Ice Miller and Thomas Kronberger at Grünecker.

• 7 Key Takeaways For Litigating Willful Patent Infringement

  

  Brian Nolan and Manuel Velez at Mayer Brown explore the impact of the Federal Circuit's 2021 SRI International v. Cisco Systems decision, and six other areas recent parties have focused on when litigating willful infringement in the latest case law.

• Trademark Ruling Brings Clarity To Product Defect Liability

  

  The recent Court of Justice of the EU ruling in Fennia v. Philips, its first concerning the trademark aspect of producer liability in Article 3(1) of Directive 85/374, brings greater clarity to the question of compensation in the event of a claim for defective products, say Radboud Ribbert and Thomas van Weeren at Greenberg Traurig.

• Appointments Shape EU Unified Patent Court Before Launch

  

  A series of judiciary appointments at the EU Unified Patent Court help put the court on track for its April opening, while also reflecting a patent-friendly enforcement system, say attorneys at Baker McKenzie.

• 5 Considerations In Preparing For EU's New Patent System

  

  With the upcoming implementation of the unitary patent and Unified Patent Court, Europe gets closer to its long-term goal of one EU patent that can be enforced in one court, and non-EU patent owners and applicants will have strategic decisions to make, say Fabian Koenigbauer at Ice Miller and Thomas Kronberger at Grünecker.

• Reexamining Negative Limitations After Novartis Patent Ruling

  

  The Federal Circuit's decision and denial of rehearing in Novartis v. Accord has created exacting standards that must be met in order for negative limitations in patent claims to satisfy the written description requirement, but whether the dissent is correct that the majority opinion heightened the standard is an arguable point, say Jonathan Fitzgerald and Jaime Choi at Snell & Wilmer.

• UK Courts' 3rd-Party Disclosure Rule Sets Global Precedent

  

  The quiet change about to take place in the English Civil Procedure Rules, enabling U.K. courts to require pre-action disclosure of information from overseas third parties, is uncharted territory and will have profound implications for any organization that handles assets on behalf of a party, says Simon Bushell at Seladore Legal.

• Zara TM Ruling Shows Prefiling Clearance Is Always Advisable

  

  The recent Trade Mark Tribunal decision regarding Zara and House of Zana demonstrates the importance of conducting prefiling clearance investigations, so that where opposition may be anticipated, a strategy can be put in place, says Melanie Harvey at Birketts.

• Dutch Merger May Promote Behavioral Remedies Across EU

  

  A Dutch tribunal's recent clearing of the Sanoma-Iddink deal might further encourage merging parties in the EU to offer — and government agencies to accept — behavioral remedies, which was rarer when more emphasis was put on divestments, says Robert Hardy at Greenberg Traurig.

• How Will UK Address AI Patent Infringement?

  

  As artificial intelligence-related patent litigation activity inevitably approaches, a review of U.K. principles of direct and indirect liability offers insight into how courts may address questions involving cloud-based technology and arguments related to training AI models, say Alexander Korenberg at Kilburn & Strode and Toby Bond at Bird & Bird.

• Law Commission's 'Data Objects' Proposal Is Far-Reaching

  

  The Law Commission’s proposals to recognize data objects as a new category of personal property would bring fundamental changes were they to be implemented, and would have significant ramifications for finance litigation, say attorneys at Norton Rose.

• UK Rulings Give Chinese Courts Wide Powers In IP Disputes

  

  The recent rulings in Nokia v. Oppo and Philips v. Oppo open the door for Chinese courts to adjudicate worldwide rate-setting terms for standard-essential patents, and in so doing present a timely wake-up call as to China's influence, say F. Scott Kieff at George Washington University Law School and Thomas Grant at the University of Cambridge.

• Swatch V. Samsung Offers IP Warning To Platform Operators

  

  The recent U.K. High Court decision of Swatch v. Samsung demonstrates that while platform operators may wish to exercise greater control over the apps distributed on their platforms, this carries with it a corresponding duty to apply due diligence to protect the intellectual property rights of third parties, say Alex Borthwick and William Hillson at Powell Gilbert.

• Opinion

  The USPTO Should Give Ukraine Even More Help

  

  The U.S. Patent and Trademark office should take three direct steps to help confer upon Ukraine's patent office the same benefits it previously granted to Russia's Rospatent, in addition to the sanctions the USPTO has already conferred in response to the attack on Ukraine, say David Kappos at Cravath, Teresa Summers at Summers Law Group and Andrew Baluch at Smith Baluch.