IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v12y2023i5p311-d1152206.html

The Judicial Geography of Patent Litigation in Germany: Implications for the Institutionalization of the European Unified Patent Court

Author

Listed:
  • Marius Zipf

    (Economic Geography Group, Institute of Geography, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany)

  • Johannes Glückler

    (Economic Geography Group, Institute of Geography, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany)

  • Tamar Khuchua

    (Centre for the Sociology of Organizations, Sciences Po, 75007 Paris, France)

  • Emmanuel Lazega

    (Centre for the Sociology of Organizations, Sciences Po, 75007 Paris, France)

  • François Lachapelle

    (Centre for the Sociology of Organizations, Sciences Po, 75007 Paris, France)

  • Jakob Hoffmann

    (Economic Geography Group, Institute of Geography, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany)

Abstract

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) will be the pillar of a unified European patent enforcement system. Crucial to its success will be the harmonization of geographical variation in national jurisdictions. Germany offers a unique opportunity to explore such harmonization, as plaintiffs can choose between twelve regional courts to file a patent suit, resulting in different patent court practices within the same jurisdiction. Adopting a legal geography perspective, we examine the appellate process as a mechanism that reconciles regional variation in court practices. Based on more than 100 decisions from 34 contentious litigations that went through all instances up to the Federal Court of Justice between 2005 and 2019, we find that decision reversals, case citations and guiding principles are important tools to improve error correction and judicial consistency within an IP system. We see these instruments as crucial for national harmonization also in the upcoming European framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Marius Zipf & Johannes Glückler & Tamar Khuchua & Emmanuel Lazega & François Lachapelle & Jakob Hoffmann, 2023. "The Judicial Geography of Patent Litigation in Germany: Implications for the Institutionalization of the European Unified Patent Court," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:12:y:2023:i:5:p:311-:d:1152206
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/5/311/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/5/311/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katrin Cremers & Max Ernicke & Fabian Gaessler & Dietmar Harhoff & Christian Helmers & Luke McDonagh & Paula Schliessler & Nicolas Zeebroeck, 2017. "Erratum to: Patent litigation in Europe," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 45-46, August.
      • Cremers, Katrin & Ernicke, Max & Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Helmers, Christian & McDonagh, Luke & Schliessler, Paula & Van Zeebroeck, Nicolas, 2013. "Patent litigation in Europe," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-072, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
      • Katrin Cremers & Max Ernicke & Fabian Gaessler & Dietmar Harhoff & Christian Helmers & Luke Mc Donagh & Paula Schliessler & Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2017. "Patent litigation in Europe," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/226239, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. Raphael Zingg & Erasmus Elsner, 2020. "Protection heterogeneity in a harmonized European patent system," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 87-131, August.
    3. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    4. Christoph Engel, 2021. "Lucky You: Your Case is Heard by a Seasoned Panel – Panel Effects in the German Constitutional Court," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2021_05, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics, revised 01 Jun 2022.
    5. Gaessler, Fabian & Lefouili, Yassine, 2017. "What to Buy When Forum Shopping? Analyzing Court Selection in Patent Litigation," TSE Working Papers 17-775, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    6. Shavell, Steven, 1995. "The Appeals Process as a Means of Error Correction," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 379-426, June.
    7. George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, 1984. "The Selection of Disputes for Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-56, January.
    8. Katalin Gombos & Endre Orbán, 2022. "The Hungarian and German constitutional courts refused the ratification of the agreement on a Unified Patent Court. What’s next?," Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 35-44.
    9. Lupu, Yonatan & Voeten, Erik, 2012. "Precedent in International Courts: A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human Rights," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 413-439, April.
    10. Joerg Knieling & Frank Othengrafen, 2015. "Planning Culture--A Concept to Explain the Evolution of Planning Policies and Processes in Europe?," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(11), pages 2133-2147, November.
    11. Joachim Henkel & Hans Zischka, 2019. "How many patents are truly valid? Extent, causes, and remedies for latent patent invalidity," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 195-239, October.
    12. Stuart Graham & Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2014. "Comparing Patent Litigation Across Europe: A First Look," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/159411, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    13. Estelle Evrard, 2022. "Reading EUropean borderlands under the perspective of legal geography and spatial justice," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 843-859, May.
    14. Tilko Swalve, 2022. "Does Group Familiarity Improve Deliberations in Judicial Teams? Evidence from the German Federal Court of Justice," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 223-249, March.
    15. Cremers, Katrin, 2004. "Determinants of Patent Litigation in Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 04-72, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lin Zou & Yiwen Zhu, 2024. "What mode is conducive to an effective regional IP regime? Evidence from intellectual property courts in China," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joachim Henkel & Hans Zischka, 2019. "How many patents are truly valid? Extent, causes, and remedies for latent patent invalidity," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 195-239, October.
    2. Hoffmann, Jakob & Glückler, Johannes & Khuchua, Tamar & Lachapelle, Francois & Lazega, Emmanuel & Zipf, Marius, 2024. "Legalist and realist decision-making in patent law: Validity cases in Germany," SocArXiv p354r, Center for Open Science.
    3. Rahul RK Kapoor & Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2016. "The laws of action and reaction: on determinants of patent disputes in European chemical and drug industries," Working Papers TIMES² WP 2016-019, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. repec:osf:socarx:p354r_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Raphael Zingg & Erasmus Elsner, 2020. "Protection heterogeneity in a harmonized European patent system," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 87-131, August.
    6. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    7. Karin Beukel & Minyuan Zhao, 2018. "IP litigation is local, but those who litigate are global," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 53-70, June.
    8. Pierre Bentata & Romain Espinosa & Yolande Hiriart, 2019. "Correction Activities by France’s Supreme Courts and Control over their Dockets," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 129(2), pages 169-204.
    9. Dumont Béatrice, 2015. "Does Patent Quality Drive Damages in Patent Lawsuits? Lessons from the French Judicial System," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 355-383, July.
    10. Katrin Cremers, 2009. "Settlement during patent litigation trials. An empirical analysis for Germany," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 182-195, April.
    11. Arianna Martinelli & Julia Mazzei & Daniele Moschella, 2022. "Patent disputes as emerging barriers to technology entry? Empirical evidence from patent opposition," LEM Papers Series 2022/12, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    12. Katrin Cremers & Paula Schliessler, 2015. "Patent litigation settlement in Germany: why parties settle during trial," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 185-208, October.
    13. Pierre Bentata & Yolande Hiriart, 2015. "Biased Judges: Evidence from French Environmental Cases," Working Papers 2015-17, CRESE.
    14. Michael Hellwig & Kai Hüschelrath & Ulrich Laitenberger, 2018. "Settlements and Appeals in the European Commission’s Cartel Cases: An Empirical Assessment," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 52(1), pages 55-84, February.
    15. Kirstein, Roland & Schmidtchen, Dieter, 1997. "Judicial detection skill and contractual compliance," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 509-520, December.
    16. Kimberlee Weatherall & Elizabeth Webster, 2014. "Patent Enforcement: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 312-343, April.
    17. Flavio Menezes & Magnus Söderberg & Miguel Santolino, 2012. "Regulatory behaviour under threat of court reversal," Discussion Papers Series 472, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    18. Joshua A Strayhorn, 2019. "Competing signals in the judicial hierarchy," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(3), pages 308-329, July.
    19. A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, 2005. "Economic Analysis of Law," Discussion Papers 05-005, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    20. Michael Faure, 2001. "A Selection of Empirical Socio-Economic Research with Respect to the Functioning of Legal Rules and Institutions in Belgium and the Netherlands," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 207-248, May.
    21. Appio, Francesco Paolo & Baglieri, Daniela & Cesaroni, Fabrizio & Spicuzza, Lucia & Donato, Alessia, 2022. "Patent design strategies: Empirical evidence from European patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:12:y:2023:i:5:p:311-:d:1152206. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.