Preview

Kutafin Law Review

Advanced search

Towards the Uniformity and Consistency in Jurisprudence on the European and Eurasian Patents.

https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2025.4.34.882-907

Abstract

The paper analyzes dispute-resolution practice for European patents and evaluates mechanisms to ensure its uniformity, with emphasis on the functioning of the European Union. The European patent dispute system is complex and involves multiple adjudicative bodies — national courts of contracting states to the European Patent Convention, the European Patent Office’s Boards of Appeal, the Unified Patent Court, and the Court of Justice of the EU — which creates a need for tools to harmonize case law and consolidate European patent law. Using comparative legal analysis and statistical data on Eurasian patent disputes, the study assesses the applicability of European harmonization mechanisms to the Eurasian patent system and concludes that establishing a specialized supranational court for Eurasian patents would currently be premature. The analysis draws on foreign and Russian scholarly literature, national court practice across Europe, and decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the European Patent Organization (EPO) and the Court of Intellectual Property Rights.

About the Authors

R. A. Kasyanov
Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (MGIMO University)
Russian Federation

Rustam A. Kasyanov, Dr. Sci. (Law), Professor, Department of Integration and Human Rights Law



I. M. Yazberdiev
Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (MGIMO University)
Russian Federation

Ihlas M. Yazberdiev, Postgraduate Student



References

1. Baillie, I.C. (1976). Where goes Europe? The European patent. Journal of Patent and Trademark Society, 58(3). Available at: https://tind.wipo.int/record/8609?ln=en [Accessed 03.01.2025].

2. Brack, H.P., (2016). Post Brüstle Developments in EU Biotech Pat ent Law at the CJEU. EPI Information. Available at: https://information.patentepi.org/1-16/post-bruestle-developments.html [Accessed 03.01.2025].

3. Cambrook, K. and Millson, B., (2020). SPCs: a deep dive into CJEU case law. Life Science Intellectual Property Review. Available at: https://www.lifesciencesipreview.com/big-pharma/spcs-a-deep-dive-into-cjeu-case-law [Accessed 03.01.2025].

4. Cohen, L., (2024). Courting consistency in the UPC? Kluwer Patent Blog. Available at: https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/05/17/courting-consistency-in-the-upc/ [Accessed 03.01.2025].

5. Demark, A., (2020). Contemporary issues regarding member state liability for infringement of EU law by national courts. EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series, 4, doi: 10.25234/eclic/11908.

6. England, P., (2016). The scope of protection of patent claims in Europe and the UPC. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 2016. 11(9), doi: 10.1093/jiplp/jpw116.

7. Ispolinov, A.S., (2016). Precedent in case law of Court of European Union. Mezhdunarodnoye pravosudiye, 3(19), doi: 10.21128/2226-2059-2016-3-64-77. (In Russ.).

8. Khuchua, T., (2019). Diɣerent “Rules of the Game” — Impact of National Court Systems on Patent Litigation in the EU and the Need for New Perspectives. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 10, doi: 10.1007/s40319-019-00808-x%3E.

9. Klos, M., (2024). UPC judges: The new complete overview. JUVE Patent. Available at: https://www.juve-patent.com/legal-commentary/upc-judges-the-complete-overview/ [Accessed 03.01.2025].

10. Krupko, S., (2018). Deliktnyye obyazatel’stva v sfere intellektual’noy sobstvennosti v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave [Tortious obligations in the feld of intellectual property in international private law]. Moscow: Statut Publ. (In Russ.).

11. McDonagh, L., (2017). Biogen v. Medeva, In: Bellido, J. (ed.), Landmark Cases in Intellectual Property Law. London: Hart Publishing, doi: 10.5040/9781509904693.ch-011.

12. Michele-De Gazotte, A., Holland, D. and Snape, J., (2022). Judgement day: could UPC judges harmonize international patent law. Garm-paels & Arnsford — Insingts. Available at: https://www.carpmaels.com/judgment-day-could-upc-judges-harmonise-international-patent-law/ [Accessed 03.01.2025].

13. Michele-De Gazotte, A. and Snape, J., (2023). Judgement day II: Could national judges harmonize international patent law? Garmpaels & Arnsford — Insingts. Available at: https://www.carpmaels.com/judgment-day-ii-could-national-judges-harmonise-international-patent-law/ [Accessed 03.01.2025].

14. Minssen, T. and Nordberg, Ǩ., (2015). The evolution of the CJEU’s case law on stem cell patents: Context, outcome and implications of Case C-364/13 International Stem Cell Corporation. Nordic Intellectual Property Law Review, 5, pp. 493–503, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2576807.

15. Vrtovec, K.T. and Scott, C.T., (2011). The European Court of Justice ruling in Brüstle v. Greenpeace: the impacts on patenting of human induced pluripotent stem cells in Europe. Greenpeace: the impacts on patenting of human induced pluripotent stem cells in Europe. Cell Stem Cell, 9(6), doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2011.11.009.

16. Wadlow, C., (2013). Hamlet without the prince: Can the Unitary Patent Regulation strut its stuff without Articles 6–8? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 8(3), doi: doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jps230.

17. Walsh, K., (2019). Promoting Harmonization Across the Europe an Patent System Through Judicial Dialogue and Cooperation. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 50, doi: 10.1007/s40319-019-00808-x.

18. Whelan, J., Douglas, S. and Dwyer, S., (2023). All for one. The commencement of the unitary patent system marks a signifcant step forward for patent protection and enforcement in Europe. Law Society Gazette of Ireland, 117(8). Available at: https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/gazette/gazette-pdfs/gazette-2023/october-2023-gazette.pdf [Accessed 03.01.2025].


Review

For citations:


Kasyanov R.A., Yazberdiev I.M. Towards the Uniformity and Consistency in Jurisprudence on the European and Eurasian Patents. Kutafin Law Review. 2025;12(4):882-907. https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2025.4.34.882-907

Views: 237

JATS XML


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2713-0525 (Print)
ISSN 2713-0533 (Online)