European officials finally hammered out a compromise deal on the future of the proposed EU Patent Court on Friday -- with power to be split between London, Paris and Munich – but leading specialist lawyers remain concerned over a lack of structural clarity.

Richard Willoughby, an intellectual property specialist and patent litigation partner at London law firm Rouse, said: ‘The deal is an interesting compromise. Contrary to many of the public statements over recent months, the deal indeed shows that the location of the court was not the only issue outstanding, nor even the most important.’

Funding issues
 
Mr Willoughby went on to say that questions remain over how the court will operate in practice, as well as issues over resources and funding. ‘How much it will actually cost to run and use is completely unclear. The figures being quoted -- even if accurate -- are for getting unitary patents, not enforcing them. Under this proposal, there are now in effect three central divisions requiring judges, logistical support, facilities, rather than one. This can only add to the expense and complexity.’
Simon Cohen, the partner in charge of the UK patents team at global law firm Taylor Wessing, commented: ‘Although an unusual compromise appears to have been reached on the court's location, the patent profession will at least be relieved to see a balanced approach has been arrived at and avoided the temptation to concentrate power in one location. Of course, the devil is in the detail and we wait to see how the full package will deal with appeals to the Court of Justice and other substantive issues.’

Agreement ‘not final’

Keith Hodkinson, partner and chairman of UK patent and trademark attorneys Marks & Clerk International, said the European Council announcement ‘does not represent a final agreement on the Unitary Patent Court or a victory for the UK Government.
‘Whilst the location the court is certainly of economic significance, and the decision to locate at least certain specialist work in London is welcome, the chief concern for the professions and industry has always been the fundamental flaws in the regime, rather than the issue of where cases are heard… Despite talk of final agreement there are a number of pressing questions yet to be answered, and this process could yet continue for some time.’
Meanwhile, Benoît Battistelli – President of the European Patent Office (EPO) – welcomed the agreement. saying: ‘With this long-awaited step towards the completion of the European patent system, Europe has demonstrated its conviction that boosting innovation and strengthening the competitiveness of its industry is the best way of countering the current economic uncertainties. The simplification of the existing patent system will bring particular benefits to small and medium-sized enterprises and to innovators in universities and research centres.’