UK: European Patent Strategy: A Helpful Framework

Last Updated: 14 December 2010
Article by Carl Rohsler

Selecting the right forum for patent litigation is often considered to be something of a 'black art'. In this article Carl Rohsler, Head of the Intellectual Property Group at Hammonds LLP, attempts to demystify this area. He clarifies the issues to be considered when selecting the right forum. His analysis framework will be helpful to both patentees and practitioners alike to highlight the most significant factors in developing what might be termed a "European patent strategy".

Two patent systems

We currently have two systems by which a patent can be granted in European states. The first is via a national filing in each country (so that, for example, one applies to the UK Intellectual Property Office for the granting of a UK patent). The second mechanism is through the operation of the European Patent Convention ("EPC") and the European Patent Office ("EPO") which is located in Munich, Germany. This system is designed to minimise the amount of bureaucracy necessary to achieve patents in the states that have signed up to the EPC. Essentially, a single application is made which designates those nation states where the applicant wishes to have protection. The application is examined centrally and, if no fundamental objections are found, it is published and thereafter is subject to an opposition period during which third parties can seek to persuade the EPO that the patent should not be granted.

If opposition proceedings succeed then the application will fail. However, if the application survives the opposition period intact, it will be granted and, at that point, separate applications arise in each national patent system which has been designated by the applicant. Some years ago, there were a number of further formalities which were required before the patent was actually granted in each of those states (for example the payment of certain fees and the filing of translations of the patent into local languages). However, these have been significantly reduced in recent years.

The important point is that we do not have a "European Community Patent" in the way that we have managed to achieve a Community trade mark system. All patents remain national in their geographical scope and so a European patent designating the UK (often referred to by the shorthand "EP (UK)") is precisely the same in terms of its scope of protection as a patent granted following a single national filing at the UK IP office. There are, in fact, some potential subtleties about the tests to be applied (Patents Act or Protocol under the EPC when determining validity and infringement), but they are too delicate to fall into consideration in a note of this scope.

Can one choose among the available courts?

European countries have, for a number of years, sought to regulate the potential conflict of different jurisdictions that might exist between states and to create a series of rules about where actions can and should be brought. This is an important part of any European policy designed to create harmonisation between states over matters such as trade. The rules were found in the Brussels and Lugano Conventions and, more recently, are set out in the Brussels Regulation. What follows is something of a gross oversimplification of the rules, but nonetheless hopefully a handy guide:

  • The general principle is that in civil cases, one should sue a defendant in the territory in which that defendant is domiciled. However, that basic principle (which is essentially "defendant friendly") is subject to a number of important exceptions.
  • First, in relation to torts (and of course patent infringement is a statutory tort), one is entitled to bring proceedings where the harmful activity occurred.
  • Second, in relation to emergency protective measures (such as interim injunctions) one is also entitled to seek remedies in the court for the jurisdiction in which the harm arose.
  • Third, disputes concerning the registration or validity of a patent should be determined in the jurisdiction where the patent is registered or where the patent application has been filed.


These exceptions are clearly very important in intellectual property cases and normally mean that the overall effect of the rules on "where one can sue" becomes claimant friendly. There is, in effect, the ability for the claimant to choose the forum in which it wishes the dispute to be heard.

The position is, in fact, slightly more subtle than described above. As noted, one can issue proceedings for patent infringement in either of those jurisdictions in which (i) the harmful event took place or (ii) the cause of the tortious activity was located. This might seem to be a fine distinction, but it can have an impact in relation to damages. For example, imagine a claimant owning one granted European patent which designates France, Germany and the United Kingdom as the three territories in which it provides protection. The defendant has one factory in the United Kingdom and then makes sales of the product in France, Germany and Spain. Clearly, no action could be brought in relation to sales in Spain (there being no patent protection). In relation to France and Germany, a patent action could be brought in the local courts but damages would only be able to be recovered in relation to those infringing acts taking place in each of those jurisdictions. By contrast, an action brought in the English courts would be able to deal with all of the damage being suffered. So there may be some benefit in examining where the financial impact of the infringement has its "root".

Types of remedy available from each of the courts

Taking the examples of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, the remedies available for patent infringement are all, essentially, the same: each court is able to grant financial compensation for the damage caused by the infringement (or the wrongful profit made by the defendant) and, more importantly, each of the courts will be able to grant an injunction preventing further infringement and other remedies such as delivery up of the infringing product and/or destruction under oath. Ultimately, some courts (although, notably, not the German courts) will have the power to invoke the criminal law against those who ignore a validly served injunction.

There is no possibility of a "pan-European injunction". The decision of a UK court that a patent has been infringed may well have a striking commercial effect in bringing the defendant to the negotiating table to seek a licence or stop its activity on a pan- European basis, but the English court will not be able to grant an injunction which will be effective in Germany.

That position is the same for each of the courts being considered in the above example. In other words, invalidating the patent in Germany will not have the effect of invalidation in the UK or France – although in practice it may make those patents of little economic or commercial value following an adverse finding in Germany. The only "remedy" in which there is a substantial difference in the treatment as between French, German and English courts is that of costs. That is dealt with separately below.

Comparison of the different systems

So far, we have dealt with what one might (mixing IP vocabulary) call "absolute grounds" for making a decision to pursue an action in one court or another – i.e. grounds which either entirely permit or entirely prohibit an action from being commenced. Thereafter, the issue of where to commence proceedings becomes much more one of judgement and nuance (and in most cases there are advantages and disadvantages to any particular course of action). The various factors that go into assessing the merits and the merits of acting in a particular jurisdiction may be summarised as follows:

(1) Legal system

The courts in England, Wales and Scotland operate on a common law system. By comparison, both France and Germany operate a codified civil law system in which case law has a lesser role to play. It is difficult to say how this factor plays out in a particular case except that some claimants (for example, a claimant based in the US) may find a common law system instinctively easier to understand.

(2) Language

Clearly, although many French and German lawyers have excellent linguistic skills, there is a measure of extra complexity in the process of obtaining and receiving instructions and giving tactical advice where the language of the proceedings will not be English. Conversely, of course, a German patentee might feel more at home with proceedings in the German Courts.

(3) "Philosophy"

Perhaps the most nebulous of the differences between the Continental courts and the UK courts is that the UK courts operate an adversarial system whilst the European courts tend to operate upon "inquisitorial" lines. It is very difficult to give concrete examples of exactly how these tendencies express themselves. An example might be the philosophy of the Continental courts that the court will collect and assess the evidence with a view to identifying the truth. In an adversarial system, the obligation (or right) to collect and analyse the evidence is placed much more firmly in the hands of the parties and the court will seek to determine which of the parties has put forward the best (most probably correct) case rather than concerning itself with its own investigation of the evidence.

(4) Quality of the judicial consideration

Approximately 90% of all patent actions in Europe are held either in the courts of Germany or in the United Kingdom. As between those two jurisdictions, Germany has by far the majority (in terms of absolute number of cases) than the UK. The "market" for patent law in France is considerably smaller which means that the available pool of skilled practitioners (and indeed the available pool of skilled judges) is smaller.

In Germany, a number of courts (particularly the Landgerichte (district courts) of Düsseldorf and Mannheim) have gained a reputation as being specialist in patent proceedings. This is the case even though judges in those courts will not necessarily have a technical background. In the United Kingdom, all of the judges in the Patents Court (and the Patents County Court) will be former barristers with technical specialism (usually at least a degree in a science subject and sometimes a previous career in science). Because they will hear only intellectual property cases, these judges will generally be much more familiar with the kind of arguments that are deployed. Again, it is difficult to know whether this is an advantage or disadvantage. For a marginal case, some may say that putting the matter before a non-specialist judge may give the claimant an advantage but there are also issues as to whether any resulting judgment is given as much credence in other courts. In any event, the technical ability of the judges is only one of the overall factors in assessing the quality of justice delivered.

A final point, of relevance to those with US experience: none of the systems under consideration use juries.

(5) Ability of a single court to deal with the proceedings

In the United Kingdom, patent cases are either dealt with in the Patents Court (part of the High Court) or the Patents County Court (which is a lower court designed to provide a swifter and simpler form of justice). Both these courts can deal with issues of infringement and any counterclaim of invalidity. By contrast, in Germany, the Landgericht (the court which deals with issues of infringement) does not have the power to deal with questions of validity. Validity issues are dealt with by the Federal Patent Court in Munich. This means that in cases where infringement is alleged and invalidity is counterclaimed, the proceedings of the infringement claim are subject to an application for a stay. In the stay application, the Landgericht judge will make an initial finding as to whether the validity claims are prima facie strong or not. This gives an initial (albeit imperfect) view on validity. If it appears that the case on validity is more than merely shadowy, the infringement proceedings will be stayed and the issue of validity will be dealt with in the federal court. Once a decision has been reached in relation to validity, the matter will be returned for consideration on the infringement issue by the Landgericht.

The French system would involve a case being brought before the Tribunal de Grande Instance (effectively a regional High Court)

(6) Appeals

For completeness, it is worth mentioning the appeals process.

  • The German system allows appeals on questions of infringement to the Oberlandesgericht (higher regional court) and then to the Federal Supreme Court (which is the final court). Invalidity issues would be appealed directly from the Federal Patent Court to the Federal Supreme Court. Liability and quantum are normally decided at separate hearings.
  • The French system would normally start in the Tribunale de Grande Instance or the Trade Court, with appeals to the Cour d'Appel and the Cour de Cassation. Liability and quantum are heard together.
  • The English system would start in the Patent Court (with appeal to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) or in the Patents County Court (for simpler and lower value matters) with appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court).

Appeals in Germany to the higher regional court will be effectively re-hearings, whilst those to the Federal Supreme Court will essentially be restricted to matters of law. In France, the ability to introduce new evidence on appeal means that the appeal process can very often be close to being a re-hearing. In English Courts, appeals at all stages are limited to errors as to the treatment of the evidence or errors of law.

(7) Procedural differences

The most significant procedural differences between French, German and UK courts in patent actions are those relating to witnesses and disclosure. The UK has a sophisticated and wide ranging series of disclosure obligations and allows the production of expert reports, the operating of experiments and the cross-examination of both experts and witnesses of fact. The average trial length of a patent case brought in the High Court in the UK is probably 7 to 10 days.

In stark contrast, there are almost no obligations of disclosure in either French or German patent proceedings. The arguments, both legal and factual, will be put before the court in a trial which would not normally extend beyond one day and where the calling and cross-examination of witnesses is rare.

Again, this is a double-edged sword. Generally, however, patentees who feel that they have a strong case (or wish the issues to be explored to their fullest extent) would prefer UK proceedings over those in France or Germany.

(8) Costs

The disadvantage of thoroughness (or the advantage of limited disclosure and examination of the evidence) is that the cost of proceeding in Continental courts is significantly cheaper than that in the UK courts. One would normally expect a patent action on infringement issues alone to cost something in the region of €20,000 – €40,000 in the German courts. Even assuming an attack on validity and the potential for an appeal, litigation would probably cost less than €75,000. Trials being shorter and the issues being more heavily prescribed, decisions are often reached within 9 to 12 months.

By contrast, a significant patent action in the High Court in England with all of the costs of disclosure, experts, barristers and so on, will cost perhaps 10 times as much as a European equivalent. Cases in the High Court will probably take 12 to 14 months to come to trial.

However, there are a number of further important factors that need to be considered on the issue of costs when comparing the two jurisdictions:

  • First, a successful litigant in the English courts will be able to recover from his opponent approximately 3/4 of the costs of the action. So a losing party in a major patent action may be confronted not only with a bill for more than €750,000 from his own lawyers but also something similar in relation to his opponent's costs. There are a number of ways in which the courts have sought to deal with issues of costs and limit the ability of parties to use costs as a "weapon" in litigation but it must be said that there is still some truth in the comment of one judge who said that: "English justice is open to everybody, just like the Ritz hotel". Inevitably, however, the pressure created by the burden of costs and the casino like effect of "winner takes all" means that large and sophisticated organisations sometimes choose the English courts in order to put economic pressure on defendants.
    By contrast, recoverability of costs in French and German courts is very much more restricted (by reference to particular scales of recoverable costs based on the value of the action). In practice, therefore, although a party may only have a cost exposure of €40,000 - €75,000 in a German court, they will, even if victorious, only be able to recover a small fraction of that amount.
  • The relatively inexpensive nature of German proceedings has been one reason why the German courts have become generally regarded as "jurisdiction of choice" for patent litigants in Europe. However, in recent years, the UK government has introduced the Patents County Court as a deliberate attempt to provide a forum for more efficient and speedy resolution of matters. Very recently (in October 2010) further regulations in relation to the PCC have created a system which is not dissimilar to that operating in Germany (i.e. very restricted disclosure, the potential to restrict expert and witness evidence or exclude it altogether and a total cap on recoverable costs of £50,000). It will be interesting to see if these measures provoke an increase in the number of cases being brought before the English courts but at least now there is some form of equivalence between the UK and German systems if this forum is used.

(9) Construction of claims/for or against patentees

Finally, it is worth mentioning that there is some support for the notion that German courts are broadly more favourable to patentees than English courts. This arises because traditionally German courts have taken a more liberal approach to the construction of claims than the UK courts (and also perhaps because disclosure obligations and the chance to cross-examine witnesses give judges more time to develop criticisms of the patentee's case). However, one should not overemphasise this tendency, which is very much a question of impression and is not based on, for example, substantially different legal tests being applied.

Concluding comments

As stated at the outset, this article is intended to be a brief, rough and ready introduction to the issues which arise in selection forum in patent actions across Europe. In addition, further layers of complexity are imposed by the specific filing requirements and commercial considerations of the client, the state of opposition proceedings and so on in relation to the wider patent portfolio of the patentee and, very often, the practical use of the patent (patents for oil and gas technology are more normally litigated in the Norwegian and English courts, being the jurisdictions with a significant oil industry in the North Sea) compared with the French or German courts. This article does not, of course, represent specific legal advice on the strategy to be adopted in any particular case and offers no more than a general discussion of some of the issues that need to be considered. However, within these limitations, it is hoped that it provides a mental framework for approaching the analysis of patent strategy.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.