After years of contemplation and delays, Europe’s Unified Patent Court will be operational in about one year. U.S.-based Life Sciences patent applicants should start preparing now to ensure that their applications withstand scrutiny under the new patent court.

Europe is finalizing the establishment of the European Unified Patent Court (UPC). Once in operation, the UPC will be a centralized court devoted to settling patent disputes across Europe. The establishment of the UPC will allow patent owners to enforce European patents (and defendants to challenge them) in a single venue, instead of the current practice of bringing enforcement actions in the courts of each respective European state.  There will be a transitional period during which European patents may be opted-out of UPC jurisdiction. However, all European patents applied for after the transitional period will fall under the jurisdiction of the UPC. Of course, courts of a particular country will continue to have jurisdiction over patent applications filed directly in that particular country using the Paris Convention.

Political and constitutional issues in the United Kingdom (i.e., Brexit) and Germany, respectively, have delayed the implementation of the UPC despite its ratification in 2013. These issues have (mostly) been resolved and, as of January 19, 2022, thirteen states have ratified the start of the Provisional Application Period of the UPC agreement. This means the final stages of implementing the UPC may commence (e.g., recruiting judges). Current estimates indicate an official start date of early 2023 with Courts of First Instance in Milan, Munich, Paris, and Stockholm, and a Court of Appeal in Luxembourg.

The establishment of the UPC also means the birth of the Unitary Patent – a single patent that provides uniform patent protection across UPC member states. Once the UPC is official, any European patent granted may become a Unitary Patent upon request. The list of states that will participate in the Unitary Patent once the UPC becomes operational includes Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, and Sweden. Cyprus, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia plan on joining shortly thereafter.

Takeaways

An established UPC will make European patents more attractive to U.S.-based applicants and will have practical implications in all fields, including Life Sciences of which there were over 10,000 related applications filed in Europe in 2020. Usually, U.S.-based patent applications are filed in Europe within a year or thirty-one months of their U.S. priority date via the Paris Convention or the Patent Cooperation Treaty, respectively. Chances are applications that are currently being drafted by a U.S.-based applicant will be filed in Europe after the UPC and Unitary Patent are in effect. Care should be taken to ensure these applications are drafted to withstand European scrutiny – especially because this new European patent court will not have settled case law of its own. For example, specifications should be drafted with enough description and support (more than is typically required in the U.S.) to withstand “added matter” rejections. Also, of particular importance to the Life Sciences, applicants should be careful when drafting claims that can be construed as methods of treatment, as such claims are generally prohibited in Europe unless they fall within a specific exception such as the exception for “purpose-limited product” claims. Ensuring that applications meet these and other European patent application thresholds will allow U.S.-based applicants to hit the ground running once the European patent court opens its doors next year.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Alan S. Teran, Ph.D. Alan S. Teran, Ph.D.

Alan S. Teran, Ph.D., is an associate in the Litigation Department and Intellectual Property Group.

His practice focuses on a variety of intellectual property issues, including worldwide patent portfolio development and litigation. Alan also has experience with in-house legal and compliance matters, including…

Alan S. Teran, Ph.D., is an associate in the Litigation Department and Intellectual Property Group.

His practice focuses on a variety of intellectual property issues, including worldwide patent portfolio development and litigation. Alan also has experience with in-house legal and compliance matters, including product counseling, commercial contracts, and privacy.

Alan has expertise in semiconductor devices and fabrication as well as experience with a wide range of technologies, including augmented/virtual reality-based software solutions; material processing operations; control systems; integrated circuits; machine learning-based financial services software; media and mobile technology; medical devices; and secondary batteries.

Alan is a registered patent attorney before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office; and a Certified Information Privacy Professional in the United States (CIPP/US) with the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP).

Alan received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering at the University of Michigan, where his research focused on energy harvesting technologies and semiconductor physics for Internet-of-Things and medical applications.

Photo of Baldassare Vinti Baldassare Vinti

Baldassare (“Baldo”) Vinti is the head of Proskauer’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group.

Baldo is a first-chair trial lawyer known for navigating complex, bet-the-company intellectual property disputes across industry verticals and next-generation technologies. With over 25 years of experience, Baldo represents leading global companies…

Baldassare (“Baldo”) Vinti is the head of Proskauer’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group.

Baldo is a first-chair trial lawyer known for navigating complex, bet-the-company intellectual property disputes across industry verticals and next-generation technologies. With over 25 years of experience, Baldo represents leading global companies and universities in patent, trade secret, false advertising, consumer class actions and technology-related breach of contract litigation in federal and state courts as well as before the International Trade Commission.

Baldo is particularly sought after for his courtroom skill and strategic depth, having led trials, arbitrations and appeals in high-stakes disputes involving technologies ranging from pharmaceuticals and medical devices to encryption, digital media, diagnostics, mobile platforms and software. Baldo has represented global corporations, including Arkema S.A., British Telecommunications PLC, Church & Dwight Co., Inc., Henry Schein, Inc., Maidenform Brands Inc., Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Ossur North America Inc., Panasonic Corp., Sony Corp., Welch Foods, Inc. and Zenith Electronics LLC.

With a background in pharmacy, Baldo brings deep domain expertise to pharmaceutical litigation. He has a proven record of driving successful outcomes in complex pharmaceutical milestone payment, royalty and licensing disputes—often stemming from collaboration agreements, co-development deals, and M&A transactions—where the financial and strategic stakes run high.

In addition to representing corporate clients, Baldo works closely with university innovation and technology transfer offices to maximize the financial return of research investments. He develops tailored IP asset optimization strategies and aggressively enforces intellectual property rights to protect and monetize core innovations—whether through high-value licensing agreements, shaping and advancing spin-out company development, or successful litigation.

Baldo also provides strategic counsel on IP due diligence, complex licensing, IP structuring, patentability and freedom-to-operate analyses, and infringement and validity opinions. He advises boards and executive teams on aligning IP strategy with business objectives, mitigating risk and maximizing the value of innovation assets.

A frequent author and commentator on intellectual property topics, Baldo has been quoted in the National Law Journal, Bloomberg BNA, Law360, Westlaw Journal and Inside Counsel magazine. He is also a regular contributor to articles published in Medical Product Outsourcing magazine that deal with the medical device industry.

Baldo served as a judicial intern for Hon. John E. Sprizzo of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and for Hon. Charles A. LaTorella of the New York Supreme Court.