CYIL vol. 12 (2021)
Dimitris Liakopoulos CYIL 12 (2021) jurisdiction to the CJEU or to a specialized court pursuant to art. 257 TFEU 36 , the aim of establishing a specialized and relatively centralized jurisdictional structure, with jurisdiction to judge the validity and counterfeiting of unit patents, had initially been pursued through the proposition of a mixed agreement, which should have seen participation also of third States parties to the 1973 Munich Convention on the European Patent. However, the draft agreement on a European and Community Patent Court was declared incompatible with the Treaties established by Opinion 1/09 37 . The CJEU had in particular criticized the choice of entrusting exclusive jurisdiction in certain matters to an international court, considering that it represented a risk for the autonomy of the Union’s legal system and in particular of its jurisdictional system, based on cooperation between national courts and the EU nature that would have found a more rational positioning within the regulation. HILTY, R., JAEGER, T., LAMPING, M., ULLRICH, H. The unitary patent package: Twelve reasons for concern , Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper, 2012, pp. 12ss. LAMPING, M. Enhanced cooperation-A proper approach to market integration in the field of unitary patent protection?, in International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , 8, 2011. TRONCOSO, M. European Union Patents: A Mission Impossible? An Assessment of the Historical and Current Approaches, in Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review (International Intellectual Property Scholars Series), 17, 2013, pp. 232ss. ULLRICH, H. Enhanced cooperation in the area of unitary patent protection and European integration , in ERA Forum, 13 (4), 2013, pp. 589–610. PILA, J., WADLOW, C. The unitary European Union patent system , Hart Publishing, Oxford & Oregon, Portland, 2015. CJEU, C-235/87, Matteucci of 27 September 1988, ECLI:EC:1988:460, ECR 05589, para. 22. STOREY, T., PIMO, A. Unlocking European Union law, ed. routledge , London & New York, 2018. See also from CJEU: C-478/07, Budějovický Budvar National Corporation v. Rudolf Ammersin GmbH of 8 September 2009, ECLI:EU:C:2009:521, ECR I-07721, para. 44. CJEU, C-121/85, Conegate Limites v. HM Customs & Excise of 11 March 1986, ECLI:EU:C:1986.114, ECR I-01007. CJEU, Joined cases C-241/91P and C-242/91P, Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v. European Commission of 6 April 1995, ECLI:EU:C:1995:98, ECR I-00743. C-351/15P, European Commission v. Total and Elf Aquitaine of 18 January 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:27, published only in the electronic Reports of cases. C-434/13P, European Commission v. Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin of 18 December 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2456, published only in the electronic Reports of cases. T-747/15, EDF v. European Commission of 16 January 2018, ECLI:EU:C:T-2018:6, published only in the electronic Reports of cases. T-561/18, VQ v. ECB of 08 July 2020, ECLI:EU:C:2020:313, not yet published; T-245/17, ViaSat v. Comission of 10 March 2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:128, not yet published; C-473/93, European Commission v. Luxembourg of 2 July 1996, ECLI:EU:C:1996:263, I-3207. E. ROSATI, Originality in European Union copyright. Full harmonization through case law , Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham, 2013. BARNARD, C. The substantive law of the European Union law , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016. CLOOTS, E. National identity in European Union law , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015. ANDERSEN, S. The enforcement of European Union law: The law of the European Commission , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012. BRADLEY, K., TRAVERS, N., WHELAN, A. Of courts and constitutions . Liber amicorum in honour of Nial Fennelly, Hart Publishing, Oxford & Oregon, Portland, 2014, pp. 178ss. ILARDI, A. The new European patent , Hart Publishing, Oxford & Oregon, Portland, 2015, pp. 146ss. TILMANN, W., PLASMANN, C. Unified patent protection in Europe. A commentary , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018, pp. 210ss. 36 SCHWARZE, J., BECKER, V., HATJE, A., SCHOO, J. EU-Kommentar , op. cit. 37 CJEU, Opinion 1/09 (Unified Patent Litigation System) of 8 March 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:137, I-01137. See BARATTA, R. National courts as “guardians” and “ordinary courts” of EU Law: Opinion 1/09 of the ECJ, in Legal Issues of European Integration , 38, 2011, pp. 297ss. ROSAS, A. The national judge as EU judge: Opinion 1/09, in CARDONNEL, P., ROSAS, A., WAHL, N. (eds) Constitutionalising the EU judicial system: Essays in honour of Pernilla Lindh , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012, pp. 105ss. LOCK, T. Taking national courts more seriously? Comment on opinion 1/09, in European Law Review , 36 (4), 2011, pp. 576ss. LENAERTS, K., MASELIS, I., GUTMAN, K. European Union procedural law , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014, pp. 552ss. PARISH, M. International courts and the European legal order, in European Journal of International Law , 23 (1), 2012, pp. 143ss.
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs