ECJ Advocate General rejects EU patent litigation scheme

Enrico Bonadio

doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpq157

ECJ Advocate General rejects EU patent litigation scheme

Enrico Bonadio^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

BLS - Law

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

160 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Opinion 1/09 of the Advocate General, Juliane Kokott, 2 July 2010. The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has found that the EU centralized patent litigation system recently proposed by the Council of the European Union does not comply with EU law. In her opinion, among the various incompatibilities, she stressed that the proposed linguistic system would violate the rights of defence. This opinion constitutes a blow to the efforts to finally reach the long-awaited EU patent litigation scheme (as envisaged in the Draft Agreement on the European and Community Patents Court). This blow will be even stronger, should the ECJ confirm her opinion.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	826-827
Number of pages	2
Journal	Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice
Volume	5
Issue number	12
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpq157
Publication status	Published - 1 Dec 2010

Access to Document

10.1093/jiplp/jpq157

BonadioECJ-JIPLPAccepted author manuscript, 13.4 KB

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'ECJ Advocate General rejects EU patent litigation scheme'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

@article{933c1a4a8e3a4f61bed0721b13e9f0bf,

title = "ECJ Advocate General rejects EU patent litigation scheme",

abstract = "Opinion 1/09 of the Advocate General, Juliane Kokott, 2 July 2010. The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has found that the EU centralized patent litigation system recently proposed by the Council of the European Union does not comply with EU law. In her opinion, among the various incompatibilities, she stressed that the proposed linguistic system would violate the rights of defence. This opinion constitutes a blow to the efforts to finally reach the long-awaited EU patent litigation scheme (as envisaged in the Draft Agreement on the European and Community Patents Court). This blow will be even stronger, should the ECJ confirm her opinion.",

author = "Enrico Bonadio",

year = "2010",

month = dec,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1093/jiplp/jpq157",

language = "English",

volume = "5",

pages = "826--827",

journal = "Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice",

issn = "1747-1532",

publisher = "Oxford University Press",

number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - ECJ Advocate General rejects EU patent litigation scheme

AU - Bonadio, Enrico

PY - 2010/12/1

Y1 - 2010/12/1

N2 - Opinion 1/09 of the Advocate General, Juliane Kokott, 2 July 2010. The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has found that the EU centralized patent litigation system recently proposed by the Council of the European Union does not comply with EU law. In her opinion, among the various incompatibilities, she stressed that the proposed linguistic system would violate the rights of defence. This opinion constitutes a blow to the efforts to finally reach the long-awaited EU patent litigation scheme (as envisaged in the Draft Agreement on the European and Community Patents Court). This blow will be even stronger, should the ECJ confirm her opinion.

AB - Opinion 1/09 of the Advocate General, Juliane Kokott, 2 July 2010. The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has found that the EU centralized patent litigation system recently proposed by the Council of the European Union does not comply with EU law. In her opinion, among the various incompatibilities, she stressed that the proposed linguistic system would violate the rights of defence. This opinion constitutes a blow to the efforts to finally reach the long-awaited EU patent litigation scheme (as envisaged in the Draft Agreement on the European and Community Patents Court). This blow will be even stronger, should the ECJ confirm her opinion.

U2 - 10.1093/jiplp/jpq157

DO - 10.1093/jiplp/jpq157

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 826

EP - 827

JO - Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice

JF - Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice

SN - 1747-1532

IS - 12

ER -