European patent courts. Finally the latest proposal for the EEUPC will be critically analysed by through the questions put forward in the IPEC report. 1. Specialised Patent Courts a. Positives (benefits) The IPEC report identifies three overarching themes for the benefits of specialised patent courts: expertise; effectiveness; and, efficiency. These then each contain a number of advantages. For expertise it is claimed that judges will produce more reasoned and practical judgments as a result of their experience, legal doctrine will become more consistent, there will be greater dynamism in a fast moving and highly technical area of the law, legal training can be better directed and there will be the creation of a body of specialist IP advocates. Under effectiveness it is considered that there will be a quicker and more-effective decision-making process, greater understanding of IP issues, unique rules and procedures established for IP, reduction of judicial errors and a reduced caseload. Finely with efficiency patent courts are likely to manage the complex cases more efficiently and precisely, expertise would lead to greater cost effectiveness and faster adjudication of cases, international aspects of patents can be considered, proceedings could be shortened without the need for exhibits and experts, and, if the system allows, appeals could be sent directly to the highest court. b. Negatives (downsides) The negatives identified by the IPEC report can again be constrained within three overarching headings: cost; location; and, procedure. For costs this can be the high costs of maintaining patent courts and the training of judges, court personnel, and public prosecutors. Under location there are concerns over the lack of a specialised patent caseload, the centralisation of specialised courts limiting access to justice leading to increased travel of judges or litigants and thus increased costs, and the isolation of patent law from the developments of the general law. Third with procedure repeat litigators will have an advantage over one-time litigants as they will know the peculiarities of the system, court and personnel, informality can develop, there will be a loss of originality and freshness that can come from a generalist
European patent courts. Finally the latest proposal for the EEUPC will be critically analysed by through the questions put forward in the IPEC report. 1. Specialised Patent Courts a. Positives (benefits) The IPEC report identifies three overarching themes for the benefits of specialised patent courts: expertise; effectiveness; and, efficiency. These then each contain a number of advantages. For expertise it is claimed that judges will produce more reasoned and practical judgments as a result of their experience, legal doctrine will become more consistent, there will be greater dynamism in a fast moving and highly technical area of the law, legal training can be better directed and there will be the creation of a body of specialist IP advocates. Under effectiveness it is considered that there will be a quicker and more-effective decision-making process, greater understanding of IP issues, unique rules and procedures established for IP, reduction of judicial errors and a reduced caseload. Finely with efficiency patent courts are likely to manage the complex cases more efficiently and precisely, expertise would lead to greater cost effectiveness and faster adjudication of cases, international aspects of patents can be considered, proceedings could be shortened without the need for exhibits and experts, and, if the system allows, appeals could be sent directly to the highest court. b. Negatives (downsides) The negatives identified by the IPEC report can again be constrained within three overarching headings: cost; location; and, procedure. For costs this can be the high costs of maintaining patent courts and the training of judges, court personnel, and public prosecutors. Under location there are concerns over the lack of a specialised patent caseload, the centralisation of specialised courts limiting access to justice leading to increased travel of judges or litigants and thus increased costs, and the isolation of patent law from the developments of the general law. Third with procedure repeat litigators will have an advantage over one-time litigants as they will know the peculiarities of the system, court and personnel, informality can develop, there will be a loss of originality and freshness that can come from a generalist
SLS_2010_Patent_Paper.docx