EPO Patent Ruling will not affect prior UK Patent Judgments: English Court of Appeal

In a recent decision of the English Court of Appeal (Unilin Beheer BV v Berry Floor NV et al, 2007 EWCA Civ 364), the interplay between parallel patent proceedings at both the national and international level was explored. A European patent was litigated in the UK, and was simultaneously opposed through the European Patent Office (EPO) process. In the UK litigation, the patent was held to be valid and infringed, and all avenues of appeal were exhausted. The defendant raised the argument that if via the pending EPO process the patent were held to be invalid, it should not have to pay any damages or costs, despite the UK judgment. In dismissing the argument, the Court said that it was more important to have a final, certain and reliable court system, so that businesses and individuals could move on. Lord Justice Jacob, writing the principal judgment, expressed this view:

"You cannot unravel everything without creating uncertainty. And where a final decision has been made on a fair contest between the parties, that should stand as the final answer between them. … After a final decision businessmen should be able to get on with their businesses, knowing what the position is."

The Court ruled that the existing orders for an accounting of profits and for court costs remain enforceable. The Court went on to suggest that the uncertainty generated by the parallel systems should be addressed by legislative reform. Lord Justice Jacob suggested that scrapping the nine-month deadline for oppositions would lead to a drop in opposition proceedings. Under the current system, parties engage opposition proceedings as a matter of course, before it is clear which patents will be commercially valuable. For the full reasons for judgment, visit: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/364.html Summary by: James Kosa