如同我們過去的報導（歐洲專利統一化 往前邁進一大步），在2012-2013年，歐盟委員會與歐盟理事會建立了一套系統，其可以取得被稱為具有統一效力之歐洲專利的歐盟範圍內之專利權，（單一專利保護權；Unitary Patent Protection；UPP）。該UPP專利權可以由一些指定國家之歐盟法院，以及/或是集中歐盟法院（單一專利法院；Unified Patent Court；UPC）來進行專利維權與無效程序。這項變革之目的是要為企業打造另一項可以藉著簡化現有系統，而用於維護與實施許多個別歐盟國家的專利權，並藉著具備統一效力來提供更具成本效益之專利保護以及爭端解決途徑。

包括了歐盟三個最大的經濟體：德國、法國與英國在內的13個國家，必須批准該項協議，才能使此一系統生效。目前已有6個國家批准了該項協議。據之估計，此一系統最早直到2016年後期都不會生效。

正如同我們所報導的（歐洲專利制度正面臨大幅但緩慢的改革），其仍存在著一些顯著的障礙。UPP與UPC的制度，是基於擱置許多在實務上如何運作的智慧財產專業困擾而作出的政治妥協。這尤其可以從英國與德國法院之間，在認定侵權與無效之實務上的差異看出來。由於UPP的專利權在整個歐盟都具有一致的效力，顯然在這些不同的司法管轄區域中所採行之不同的標準，將會導致一些不公正之「逛法院」（forum shopping）的行為。在這一方面，針對於不同的法院應該要如何運作，最新版的UPC法規並沒有提供任何明確的指引。

然而，還有更大的不確定性因素。該系統對於一些處於語言劣勢上的大國，還是作出了一些妥協。義大利與西班牙這兩個最大的國家，也因而不願加入此一系統。在義大利的情況中，他們希望參與UPC（集中法院系統），但不要加入UPP體系。目前，義大利政府正在徵詢當地的利益關係團體，看看他們希望如何變更他們的立場。而似乎大多數地方利益團體，都希望義大利不要UPP與UPC這兩項制度。

西班牙同時也在歐洲法庭（European Court of Justice；ECJ），針對於UPC和UPP的非法行動，特別是對於歐洲專利局（EPO）僅認可的那些官方語言–德文、法文與英文，向歐盟提起了訴訟。幾個月前，似乎有些消息靈通的觀察家認為，歐洲法庭將會撤銷西班牙的訴訟。然而，在EPO中發生的事件已經改變了法律觀點。在這裡屬於UPP之核心的歐洲專利局，即使其並不屬於歐盟的一部分，仍然是公認的唯一可以發出任何UPP專利的專責機關。

目前，在歐洲各地司法界中，仍對於EPO是管理其之內部事務的方式，特別是違反某些關於在行政部門（EPO局長以及他的辦公室），與司法部門（上訴委員會和擴大上訴委員會）之間，是否存在有適當的權力和責任分離之普遍認同的工會權利方面，抱有相當大的疑慮。雖然EPO試圖解決這些問題，但是必須記住的是，EPO是單獨基於歐洲專利合約（EPC）而設立的，而在沒有進行長期而繁瑣的外交會議下，將會是難以修改這類條約。重要的是要記住，這不單純只是賣弄法學原則，舉例來說，如果不能證明司法部門，是相對於行政部門而適切地自治，那麼EPO就可能無法滿足依據德國憲法，來核准專利的法律要件，這就可能會對於EPO所核准之許多/所有的德國專利的有效性，造成嚴重問題。這種情況是不被允許發生的，但是其強化了西班牙所持之論點，也就是UPP與UPC在歐盟框架內，並不是具備法律有效之權利。因此西班牙仍然還有可能取得該案件的勝利，而贏得可能會結束所提出之UPP/UPC系統的情況。

根據所提出的系統，申請人係向EPO提出歐洲專利的申請。EPO係依據EPC來處理該申請案，如果所有相關的標準都被滿足的話，最終便會准予歐洲專利。在現行制度下，申請人必須將所准予之歐洲專利轉換為國家專利權。如果申請人希望在西班牙與義大利取得專利權，在其等都表示他們不會承認UPP專利（至少在目前是這樣）時，這似乎是未來在這些國家取得專利權的唯一途徑（如果申請人透過EPO，而不是始終維持獨立而昂貴的選擇之個別國家專利局來進行）。對於所提出之UPC與UPP系統內的國家來說，一旦該系統生效，申請人就可以有兩個選擇。申請人可以在基礎上，繼續採行具有轉換成這些國家之國家專利的選項之現有制度。或者申請人也可以僅只是要求EPO准予一件UPP專利。主要的差別是，該UPP將會可以在UPC系統中實施執行/進行舉發，並且將可以涵蓋UPP系統內所有的歐盟國家。

在這一方面，近日的消息是非常有趣的，因為其終於讓申請人瞭解UPP專利是否為可行的選項。歐洲專利局已經提出與取得與維持UPP專利有關的費用。這基本上是與年費有關（而不是支付給國家以在各別的國家中，維持個別國家專利權的年費費用）。必須要記住的是，EPO已經收取仍在局內審查中之申請案的維持年費，並且只有在一旦核准之後才會在進入國家繳交維護年費。歐洲專利局所提出之UPP專利的維護年費，應當以接近/等同於目前在該體系（也就是不包含西班牙與義大利）中，具有最多有效案的4個國家（德國、法國、英國與荷蘭），持續維持10年的維護與更新成本為基礎來計算。另外，他們也提出也可能是採取最多的5個國家（德國、法國、英國、荷蘭與瑞典）來計算，同時針對於中小企業、自然人、非營利組織、大學與公共研究機構，提供相關折扣優惠。這些數據係被呈現於以下表格中：

在引用這些數據時要特別注意，因為這些只是EPO首次拋出的數據。在EPO具有正式宣布相關規費之前，還需要經過許多不同階段，並且還有許多事件尚未發生。

如同我們可以看到的，總費用是相當高的。大多數評論者似乎都認為，最多的4-5個國家之層級過高，而無法鼓勵專利持有人進行申請，特別是在所欲取得保護的此一UPC系統，尚未被瞭解與認識的現在。許多人認為採用最多的3個國家之層級，將會是更為合適的。這無疑將會因更為便宜而會是更可行的，但是筆者認為上述數據，仍然隱藏了一些歐盟的評論者並不總是很瞭解的事物。

歐盟的評論者遺漏了一些對於外國申請人而言，與在個別歐盟國家中維持專利權有關之周邊成本與工作，例如雇用專利年金公司的服務，或是各種位於歐盟的獨立專利律師事務所，以及管理這些專利權所需的成本。能夠除去這些周邊成本（因為申請人在維持UPP--等同於所有的專利權--時，只需面對EPO），可能會使得EPO所提出之UPP專利的成本，至少對於外國申請人的成本而言，更具有吸引力。

作者： 郭史蒂夫 歐洲專利律師 現任： 北美智權教育訓練處 ／歐洲專利律師 經歷： Bryers事務所 歐洲專利律師 Bugnion SpA事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 Notabartolo & Gervasi事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 歐洲專利局 實習生 英國牛津大學生物化學、細胞與分子生物系，生化碩士 英國倫敦大學瑪莉皇后學院，智財管理碩士

Developments on the European Patent System
Stefano John / NAIP Education & Training Group , European Patent Attorney

As has already been reported, in 2012-2013, the European Union Commission and EU Council set up a system to obtain an EU-wide patent right called the European patents with unitary effect (Unitary Patent Protection, UPP). The UPP could then be enforced or invalidated by some dedicated national EU Courts and/or a centralized EU Court (Unified Patent Court, UPC). The aim of the reform is to offer businesses an alternative to maintaining and enforcing lots of national patent rights in separate EU countries by simplifying the existing system and support a cost effective route to patent protection and dispute settlement by having a unitary effect.

Before such a system comes into effect, it is necessary that 13 countries, including the three largest economies of the EU - DE, FR and GB – ratify the agreement. At the moment 6 countries have ratified the agreement. It is now estimated that such a system will not come into force until late 2016 at the earliest.

But, as has already been reported, there are still some significant obstacles. The UPP and UPC system was developed as a political compromise that left many IP professionals troubled as to how it would operate in practice. This is particularly evident when one looks at the difference in deciding infringement and invalidity practices between UK and DE courts. As the UPP has unitary effect over the entire EU, it is clear that the differing standards used within these jurisdictions would lead to some inequitable forum shopping. On this aspect, the most recent rules of procedure of the UPC on how the different courts should operate have not given any clearer guidance.

There are however even bigger uncertainties. The system was a compromise that left some large countries at a linguistic disadvantage. The two largest, Italy and Spain have therefore not adhered to the system. In Italy’s case, they wish to adhere to the UPC (Centralized court system), but not to the UPP. At present, the Italian government is polling local stakeholders to see if and how they should change their position. It would seem that most local stakeholders would like Italy to not adhere to both the UPP and the UPC.

Spain meanwhile has initiated an action against the EU before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the illegality of the UPC and UPP, particularly because the only official languages recognized are those of the EPO – DE, FR and ENG. A couple of months ago it seemed to some informed observers that the ECJ would set aside the complaint by Spain. However, events at the EPO have changed the legal perspective. Herein lies a central aspect of the UPP - the EPO, even though not part of the EU, is recognized as the only legal authority allowed to issue any UPP.

Currently there is considerable disquiet in judicial circles around Europe at the manner in which the EPO is managing its internal affairs, especially with respect to breaching some generally well accepted trade union rights and with respect to whether there is a proper separation of powers and responsibilities between the executive branch (the President of the EPO and his office) and the judicial branch (the Board of Appeals and the Enlarged Board of Appeal). While the EPO is attempting to resolve such issues, it must be remembered that the EPO is founded on the EPC alone, and changing such a treaty without a long and cumbersome diplomatic conference is difficult. It is important to remember that this is not mere legal pedantry as, for example, if it cannot be proven that the judicial branch is properly autonomous to the executive branch, then the EPO may not satisfy the legal requirements by which it grants patents according to the German constitution and this may create a serious problem to the validity of many/all German patents granted by the EPO. This will not be allowed to happen, but it fortifies Spain’s argument that the UPP and UPC are not legally valid rights within the EU framework. Thus Spain may yet win the case which would spell the end of the UPP/UPC system, at least as proposed.

Under the system proposed, the applicant applies for a European patent at the EPO. The EPO handles the application in accordance with the EPC and, if all relevant criteria are met, eventually grants a European patent. Under the present system, the applicant then has to convert the granted European patent into national patent rights. If the applicant wishes to have patent rights in Spain and Italy, this seems to be the only way in which to obtain patent rights in those countries in the future (if one applies through the EPO, as opposed to separate national patent offices which always remains a separate, if expensive option) as they have stated they will not recognize the UPP (at least at present). For the countries within the proposed UPC and UPP system, one would have two options once the system enters into force. One can carry on with the present system has the option of either converting into national patents in those countries on an ad hoc basis. Alternatively one could simply request the EPO to grant a single UPP. The main difference would be that the UPP would have to be enforced/invalidated in the UPC and would cover all EU countries within the UPP system.

Under this aspect, the most recent news is very interesting because it finally allows one to understand if the UPP could be viable or not. The EPO have proposed the costs involved in obtaining and maintaining the UPP. This basically deals with renewal fees (as opposed to renewal fees paid to national countries for maintaining separate national patent rights in separate countries). It must be remembered that the EPO already collects renewal fees for applications still pending before it and the renewal fees go to national countries only once granted. The EPO have proposed that the renewal fees for the UPP should be calculated on the basis of being near/equivalent to the cost of maintaining and renewing the national patent rights from the 10th year renewal onwards in the 4 countries (DE, FR, GB and NL) which are most validated at present (TOP 4) and within the system (i.e. not Spain and Italy). Alternatively, they propose that it could be the TOP 5 (DE, FR, GB, NL and SE) while offering discounts to SMEs, natural persons, non-profit organisations, universities and public research organisations. These sums are illustrated in the Table here below:

Caution should be exercised in using these numbers as they are only the first one proposed by the EPO. Many different stages have to be passed through and many events have yet to occur before the EPO has to officially announce the fees.

As can be seen, the total costs are quite high. Most commentators seem to believe that the TOP4-TOP5 level is too high to be inviting for patent holders, particularly given that the UPC system in which they would have to be enforced is not well understood and clarified yet. Many thought that TOP 3 level would have been more appropriate. This would certainly be preferable as it would have been cheaper, but I would suggest that the above sums hide something not always very clear to EU based commentators.

Author: Stefano John, European Patent Attorney Experiences： European Patent Attorney, Bryers Trainee European Patent Attorney, Bugnion SpA Trainee European Patent Attorney, Notabartolo & Gervasi Internship, EPO

Facebook 在北美智權報粉絲團上追踪我們