Re. Impact on Eurocopter
Like so many things, it "depends".
Patent protection is country specific, so inventors seeking protection beyond the borders of a single country sometimes file couterpart applications multiple countries.
With respect to the patent application that Dave has taken issue with, Sikorsky filed counterpart applications with the same disclosure and similar claims in several countries - including the European Patent Office (EPO). Were Sikorsky's EPO application to mature into a European patent, Eurocopter would be excluded from practicing the invention defined in the claims that EPO saw fit to allow - thereby potentially hindering Eurocopter's ability to develop the concept along the avenue that Sikorsky claims.
The EPO is relatively liberal in terms of prosecution being a public affair. Once published, the public can monitor events by viewing copies of correspondence between the EPO and the applicant through the EPO Register. One can even set up an automatic emailer free of charge to receive automatic email notifications when either an applicant or the EPO exchange correspondence (Register Alert). The EPO also allows third parties to submit art in an application (Third-Party Observations). And the EPO also has a relatively robust opposition process available to the public once a European patent grants (opposition period).
Sikorsky's European counterpart application is EP08861121. In November 2010 the EPO notified Sikorsky that the "application is deemed to be withdrawn" because "no use has been made of any of the legal remedies available". It appears from the information available on the Register that Sikorsky declined (or neglected) to pay the fees due to keep the application pending - so the EPO ceased prosecuting the application.
That being the case, Sikorsky presently has no right to exclude Eurocopter from practicing the claimed subject matter of the application. However, the EPO is also fairly liberal about obtaining fees from applicants - so it may be possible that Sikorsky can 'revive' the application and continue prosecution by coughing up an onerous surcharge. Consequently, Eurocopter must contend with the risk that Sikorsky might obtain some right in the future. Moreover, any product they ultimately developed might be locked out of markets where other counterpart applications issue - such as the US.
If Eurocopter is truly interested in Sikorsky's concept, it must weigh the risk that Sikorsky ultimately obtains patent protection with claims of meaningful scope in Europe or a market into which Eurocopter would otherwise sell an infringing product against Eurocopter's benefit in more fully developing the concept.
I have no idea where Eurocopter's internal calculus stands on the risk/reward balancing question. Folks with direct ties to the industry could speculate more effectively on the technical and market worth than I.
On a side note, the Written Opinion in the PCT application (PCT/US2008/076962) is worth a read. The Korean Patent Office, who prepared the search/opinion, is of the opinion that the difference between Sikorsky's broadest claim and "a radio-controlled flying toy with a rotor assembly" lies merely in the minor difference between the fields of endeavor, i.e. building toys versus building helicopters - and therefore lackis inventive step.
I guess Koreans are unimpressed by the "size matters" argument.
Cheers!
- NonSAC