[A2k] EU locked in 'deja vu' patent reform problems

Michelle Childs michelle.childs@cptech.org
Wed Dec 6 07:49:10 2006


The EPLA referred to below is still very contentious with opposition
being lead by FFII and other civil society groups.

Michelle

http://euobserver.com/9/23034/?rk=3D1


05.12.2006 - 17:38 CET | By Helena Spongenberg
EUOBSERVER / FOCUS - A twenty-year long deadlock on how to set up a
European patent system, aimed at boosting the EU's economy, is still
in place after a fresh failure of talks over the issue on Monday (4
December).

"It is a reality that in the EU we all have the same opinion. We have
to renew our patent system =96 our litigation systems," said the
Finnish trade and industry minister Mauri Pekkarinen, who led the
Brussels meeting.


"But then when we start to discuss which kind of ways we need to=85go
forward, then it's much more difficult," he said.

EU industry ministers instead concluded that they "will respond to
the [European] Commission's initiatives in due course."

The commission is at the moment preparing a proposal on an EU patent
system based on ongoing public consultations, which is set to come
out in early 2007.

But the union's 25 member states are being accused of being the main
reason for the 20 years of community patent deadlock.

"Member states have to take responsibility here too," an EU official
told EUobserver.

"The whole source of the blockade is in the council [member states'
decision-making body]" the official said, adding that industry and
the commission have agreed on how to move forward.

Brussels is seeking a common EU patent law under which a patent filed
in one member state would be valid all across the bloc, instead of
the current and costly system where persons or companies seeking a
patent in the entire union have to translate patents into several
languages and fight infringements in each member state's courts.

EU internal market commissioner Charlie McCreevy, who is responsible
for the upcoming proposal, told ministers on Monday that "it's clear
that more time is needed to look at all options".

But he added that there was nothing new coming from the ministers
saying that he had "a feeling we have been down this road before and
[I] have a great sense of deja vu."

Giving up national powers
"Some member states have a problem giving up their jurisdiction and
also languages is a problem," said Wim van der Eijk from the European
Patent Office (EPO) when speaking about the European Patent
Litigation Agreement (EPLA) recently.

"It is a very central point of the state," he said, explaining that
especially some member states have a difficulty to transfer that
control over to an international body.

The office has since 1977 granted European patents, which are bundled
with national patents subject to national grant procedures.

The EU is not part of the EPO although all EU member states - except
for Malta - are members of the organisation. Bulgaria, Iceland,
Liechtenstein, Monaco, Romania, Switzerland and Turkey are also members.

Since the 1970s, there have been parallel discussions towards the
creation of an EU community patent. It came to a complete standstill
in 2004 after EU ministers failed to agree on various issues, and
mainly on the question of time delays for translations claims.

Mr McCreevy wants the European bloc to become part of EPLA, which is
a deal drafted by the EPO.

Once ratified, the EPLA would create one single patent court for all
31 countries that are members of the EPO, including the 24 members of
the EU in the ELO and Malta.

But France want the Europe's highest court =96 the European Court of
Justice =96 alongside national courts to take care of EU patent
litigation.

Belgium on the other hand wants EU members who support the EPLA to go
ahead while other member states can join in at a later stage.

Austria, the Netherlands and the UK said they backed EPLA as it would
mean quick and cheap benefits for companies seeking to protect their
innovations.

"For the moment I think the discussion is coming to a difficult
stage, but in the long run it only makes sense," Mr Van der Eijk said.

     * Back