 |
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION 
|
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION
|
|
BLOGROLL OPML:
|
|
|
|
Search in IPJUR.COM
|
BLOG@IP::JURPatent Attorney Axel H Horns' Blog on Intellectual Property Law.
Friday, October 31, 2003Election of the President of the European Patent Office.Further to my earlier posting some time ago I now can provide a link to an  EPO press release confirming that on October 29, 2003 at its 94th meeting the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation decided to elect Mr Alain Pompidou (FR) to serve as President of the European Patent Office for a three-year term beginning on July 01, 2004 and Ms Alison Brimelow (GB) to serve as President of the European Patent Office for a term of three years following the expiry of Mr Pompidou's mandate, i.e. from July 01, 2007. The formal appointment will be made at the Council's 95th meeting, to be held in Munich in December 2003.
Mr. Alain Pompidou, a medical Professor, has been MEP during the 4th parliamentary term of the European Parliament in the years 1994 to 1999. In particular, he had influenced European bioethics policy.
Ms Alison Brimelow is Chief Executive and Comptroller General of the UK Patent Office since March 1999.
New compromise proposal concerning pending legislative proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community patent.The Presidency of the EU Council has published acompromise proposal concerning Recital 6 and Articles 9a, 20, 21, 22, 24a to 24d, 44 and 53a of the pending legislative proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community patent. This paper is addressed to COREPER. It comprises statements concerning Government use of Community patents, licences of right, the grant of compulsory licences, conditions applicable to compulsory licences, and compulsory translations of the Community patent.
In particular, it is proposed that any provision in the law of a Member State allowing non-commercial use of national patents by or for the government may be applied to Community patents, but only to the extent that the use is necessary for essential defence or national security. The patentee should be informed as soon as reasonably possible about the act and be compensated in respect of the act by the government concerned. Any dispute over the amount of compensation shall be decided by the national courts of the Member State concerned. Moreover, the Community Patent Court may grant a compulsory licence for lack or insufficiency of exploitation of a Community patent to any person filing an application four years or later after the patent application was filed and three years or later after the patent was granted if the patent proprietor has not exploited the patent in the Community on reasonable terms or has not made effective and serious preparations to do so, unless he provides legitimate reasons to justify his inaction. In determining the lack or insufficiency of exploitation of the patent, no distinction shall be made between products originating within the Community and imported products. It is mooted that On request, the Community Patent Court may grant a compulsory licence in respect of a first patent to the proprietor of a national or Community patent or to the proprietor of a plant variety right who cannot use his patent (second patent) or his national or Community plant variety right without infringing a Community patent (first patent), provided that the invention or new plant variety claimed in the second patent or plant variety right involves an important technical advance of considerable economic significance in relation to the invention claimed in the first patent. The Community Patent Court may take any measure it regards as useful to verify the existence of such a situation. In the case of a compulsory licence in respect of a dependent patent or plant variety right, the owner of the first patent shall be entitled to a cross-licence on reasonable terms to use the patented invention or protected plant variety. In times of crisis or in other situations of extreme urgency, including those relating to public health, the Community Patent Court may authorise at the request of a Member State the exploitation of a Community patent. However, the proposal says that In the case of semi-conductor technology, exploitation shall be possible without the authorisation of the right holder only in said situations of extreme urgency. With regard to the discussion on translation requirements the proposal says that when the patent is granted, the applicant shall file a translation of all the claims into all the offical languages of the Community, unless a Member State agrees to dispense with a translation into its language. The translation shall be filed, at the choice of the applicant, either directly with the Office or via the national patent office of a Member State which has as its official language or one of its official languages the language of the translation. However, the proposal is open with regard to the question on the application of terms for preparing and filing or translations into Community languages other than those required for the granting of the patent under the provisions of the Munich Convention. The proposal actually is mooting to require that such translations are produced and filed at the Office within a maximum of six, nine, or twelve months of the granting of the patent. Such translations, which have been carried out by a person authorized under the law of a Member State shall be deemed in the Community to be in conformity with the original, until proved to the contrary. As provided by the proposal, the holder of the patent may, by a request filed with the Office within a specified time limit and under the conditions specified by the provisions of the Munich Convention, opt for the Community Patent to be converted into a European Patent designating one or more Member States.
Thursday, October 30, 2003Examination of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament at first reading.Further to myearlier posting I have spotted a database entry related to some Official document No. 13955/03 of the EU Council prepared by the General Secretariat, addressed to COREPER and concerning a "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions - Examination of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament at first reading:procedure".
However, the document text is not available on the website and I guess they won't release it even upon request.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has issued a report on how to promote innovation by finding the proper balance of competition and patent law.The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has issued on October 28, 2003 itsreport on how to promote innovation by finding the proper balance of competition and patent law and policy. Although both competition in markets and patents for inventors can work together to foster innovation, the report states that each policy requires a proper balance with the other to do so.
An Executive Summary is also available.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003European Community joining the Madrid protocol on international trademarks.The European Commission haswelcomed the formal adoption by the Council of Ministers, after seven years of negotiations, of a Decision on the European Community joining the Madrid protocol on international trademarks and of a Regulation linking this international system with the Community trademark.
Sunday, October 26, 2003ECJ decision in re CTM case C-191/01 "DOUBLEMINT".On October 23, 2003 theEuropean Court of Justice (ECJ) has taken a decision in the matter of case C-191/01 "DOUBLEMINT". According to the facts and background section of the current decision, on March 29, 1996 Wrigley applied to OHIM for registration as a Community trade mark of the word DOUBLEMINT for goods within, inter alia, Classes 3, 5 and 30 of the Nice Agreement, in particular chewing gum. The examiner at OHIM rejected that application by decision of 13 October 1998, following which Wrigley brought an appeal before OHIM. By the contested decision, the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dismissed the appeal on the ground that the word DOUBLEMINT, a combination of two English words with no additional fanciful or imaginative element, was descriptive of certain characteristics of the goods in question, namely their mint-based composition and their mint flavour, and that it could therefore not be registered as a Community trade mark by virtue of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94. Procedure before the Court of First Instance and the contested judgment By an application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 1 September 1999, Wrigley brought an action for annulment of the contested decision. The Court of First Instance upheld that action.
The findings section of the ECJ in this cases comprises a very important statement: "In order for OHIM to refuse to register a trade mark under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94, it is not necessary that the signs and indications composing the mark that are referred to in that article actually be in use at the time of the application for registration in a way that is descriptive of goods or services such as those in relation to which the application is filed, or of characteristics of those goods or services. It is sufficient, as the wording of that provisions itself indicates, that such signs and indications could be used for such purposes. A sign must therefore be refused registration under that provision if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods or services concerned." The Court of the First Instance was criticised: "In the present case, the reason given by the Court of First Instance [...] for holding that the word at issue could not be refused registration under Article 7(1)(c) was that signs or indications whose meaning goes beyond the merely descriptive are capable of being registered as Community trade marks and that that term cannot be characterised as exclusively descriptive. It thus took the view that Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 had to be interpreted as precluding the registration of trade marks which are exclusively descriptive of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, or of their characteristics. In so doing, the Court of First Instance applied a test based on whether the mark is exclusively descriptive, which is not the test laid down by Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94. It thereby failed to ascertain whether the word at issue was capable of being used by other economic operators to designate a characteristic of their goods and services. " In consequence, the ECJ referred the case back to the Court of First Instance. Hence, in future it will probably much harder to obtain a registration for quasi-descriptive marks. This will be true not only with regard to the practice of the OHIM but also with regard to the national Offices because of the respective Law is harmonised throughout the EU and should be applied everywhere in the same way. Joint statement of MEDEF and BDI on the EPC and the London Agreement.The French"Mouvement des Entreprises de France" (MEDEF) as well as the German Bundesverband der deutschen Industrie e.V." (BDI) have finalised a Joint statement on the EPC and the London Agreement pressing for an expedited ratification of the London Agreement: " [...] Experience gained through the last 25 years shows that comprehensive translations of the granted European patents are very rarely used while they are a heavy burden for companies seeking to protect their inventions and improve their competitive position. The political will to make the European economy more competitive should lead to the removal of useless barriers to the protection of industrial property. The Federations of French and German Industries see that the London Agreement is crucial for a more competitive European Patent. The agreement is a great achievement of the European Patent Organisation and it should enter into force as soon as possible. This will not only help European industry to obtain affordable protection for technical inventions, but it will also contribute favourably to the debate on the establishment of a Community Patent. We therefore appeal to all Contracting States to ratify the London Agreement as soon as possible. [...]"
As aready reported in my earlier posting, Germany has initiated the ratification procedure concerning this important Agreement. However, without ratification by France, there is no way to enter into force of the Agreement . And, up to now, it is absolutely unclear if and when France will take the necessary steps.
Communication No 05/03 of the President of the OHIM.Mr.Wubbo de Boer, acting in his capacity as the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, recently has issued an interesting "Communication No 05/03 of the President of the Office of 16 October 2003 concerning the enlargement of the European Union in 2004". This Communication provides some comments with regard to the legal provisions already reported in my earlier posting.
With regard to the "Grandfathering" of CTMs, Mr. de Boer writes: " [...] A CTM registered or applied for before the date of accession of the new Member States becomes an extended CTM. Thus, an extended CTM is a CTM which has a filing date prior to the date of accession, irrespective of whether priority was claimed. It was not only necessary to decide whether such CTMs should be extended or not, but a solution had to be found as to how such applications should be examined by the OHIM (in case that had not yet happened before accession) and on what basis they could eventually be cancelled or not. The rule is that for examination on absolute grounds and cancellation actions on such grounds, only the situation existing prior to enlargement will be taken into account (meaning that absolute grounds for refusal/invalidity which become applicable merely because of accession will not be taken into account.). This is so irrespective of when the examination or the cancellation action actually takes place. Therefore, CTMs filed before enlargement will only be examined for absolute grounds on the basis of the current situation, for example as regards their meaning by taking into account the current 11 official languages of the European Community. Grounds for refusal which become applicable solely as a result of the enlargement, such as the descriptive meaning of a word in a language of one of the new Member States, will not be applied in relation to extended CTMs. The "grandfathering" applies not only at the stage of examination, but also at the stage after registration: Extended CTMs can only be cancelled on the basis of a ground that was valid at the time before enlargement (meaning that they cannot be cancelled on the basis of grounds that become applicable merely because of accession.) Therefore, a word that is descriptive, non distinctive, generic, deceptive or contrary to public policy and morality in a new Member State will not be refused by the examiner or be subject to cancellation after registration if it was filed before accession of that Member State. Equally, a CTM filed before enlargement will not be subject to an opposition proceeding (except as explained hereafter) or subject to an invalidity proceeding if it is in conflict with an earlier national right registered, applied for or acquired in a new Member State prior to the date of accession. [...] The rule according to which extended CTMs are "grandfathered" vis-à-vis new absolute and relative grounds is subject to one exception: CTM applications filed between 1 November 2003 and 30 April 2004 can be subject to oppositions based on earlier rights in the new Member States, pursuant to Article 142a(3) CTMR. [...]" Mr. de Boer also provides Presidential comments on other topics, namely on respect of acquired rights in the new Member States, consequences of "grandfathering" vis-a-vis new absolute grounds, exceptional opposition right against CTM applications, and Rules applicable to the Community designs.
Wednesday, October 22, 2003EU Council starts deliberating on patentability of computer-implemented inventions.Theagenda of the meeting of the Working Party on Intellectual Property (Patents) of the Council of the European Union scheduled to be held on October 23, 2003 in Brussels comprises a topic "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions: consideration of the outcome of the European Parliament's first reading (11503/03 CODEC 995 PI 70), taking into account 14017/02 PI 69 CODEC 1401. "
Hence, tomorrow the Council will start deliberating behind closed doors on the hottest topic currently on the EU IP agenda. It can safely be assumed that most if not all of the participants of that meeting will not be very happy with the result of the first reading of the draft directive by the European Parliament but I do not expect any definitive statement to be published after that meeting tomorrow. Let's wait and see ...
Tuesday, October 21, 2003New WIPO Brochure: "Intellectual Property - A Power Tool for Economic Growth"TheWIPO has published a new 377-pages brochure "Intellectual Property - A Power Tool for Economic Growth". The table of content lists the following items: Intellectual Property: Basic Premises And Historical Context - The Process Of Economic Growth - Intellectual Property, Knowledge And Wealth Creation - Patents, Research And Development, And New Technologies - Trademarks And Geographical Indications - Copyright And The Cultural And Information Industries - Traditional Knowledge - Acquisition And Maintenance Of Intellectual Property Rights - Enforcement Of Intellectual Property Rights - The Role Of WIPO.
The title as well as the TOC sound interesting. However, I must admit that at least at the moment I don't have the time to read all that stuff. EPO Presidency: Anglo-French Entente?Legalmedia.com reports that Alison Brimelow, chief executive officer of the UK Patent Office, and Alain Pompidou, a former MEP and member of the French government, are considering submitting a joint candidacy for the position, as a spokesperson for the UK Patent Office is said to have confirmed. According to the report, under the plan Brimelow and Pompidou would take it in turns to hold the position of EPO president.
At a meeting on 20 March 2003, the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation had failed not agree a nomination for a President to succeed Ingo Kober. The Council had therefore agreed to rerun the process in June with Member States having until 9 May to nominate candidates.
Friday, October 17, 2003Mr. Felix Addor's Report on the 5th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Cancun.The Head of the Swiss Delegation to the WTO/TRIPS Council, Chief Legal Officer and Deputy Director General of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, Mr. Felix Addor, has provided an interestingreport on the 5th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Cancun. The report, originally presented as a presentation on the Ischia Conference, is now available on the website of the Swiss Patent and Trade Mark Office.
Wednesday, October 15, 2003German Patent and Trade Mark has opened on-line electronic filing facilities.According to apress statement [in German, sorry] the German Patent and Trade Mark Office today has opened the on-line facilities for electronic filing.
EPO launches "Open Patent Services (OPS)".As announced in thelatest issue of "epidos news", the EPO has launched a new patent raw data service called "Open Patent Services (OPS)". OPS represents a new way of accessing patent information via the internet. Unlike the esp@cenet service, which offers data via a rich HTML interface, OPS is a Web services application offering the same data in XML format. The service is SOAP-based (Simple Object Access Protocol). The initial development stages of OPS have been completed and the first services offering access to the INPADOC databases (family, legal status and bibliographic data) went into production in September 2003. Additional services offering access to the remaining esp@cenet data and functions are said to be added over the course of next year. The following services are currently available from OPS: retrieval of patent family, legal and bibliographic data, with aggregates of these data types also possible. Bibliographic data is taken from the worldwide database of the esp@cenet service, and family and legal data from the INPADOC patent family searching (PFS) and legal status information (PRS) data sources.
By means of this new service, patent law firms might tailor their own patent data tools using simple standard SOAP client software.
Friday, October 10, 2003In the Official Journal of the European UnionL 236 Volume 46 23 September 2003 on page 33ff. the "Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded" has been published.
On pages 342 to 344 of the OJ, amendments to EU Industrial Property Law are indicated concerning the Community Trade Mark, Supplementary Protection Certificates as well as Community Designs.
With regard to the Community Trade Mark, a new Article 142a of the Regulation resolving conflicts caused by the EU extension is intended as follows: 1. As from the date of accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (hereinafter referred to as “new Member State(s)”), a Community trade mark registered or applied for pursuant to this Regulation before the date of accession shall be extended to the territory of those Member States in order to have equal effect throughout the Community. 2. The registration of a Community trade mark which is under application at the date of accession may not be refused on the basis of any of the absolute grounds for refusal listed in Article 7(1), if these grounds became applicable merely because of the accession of a new Member State. 3. Where an application for the registration of a Community trade mark has been filed during the six months prior to the date of accession, notice of opposition may be given pursuant to Article 42 where an earlier trade mark or another earlier right within the meaning of Article 8 was acquired in a new Member State prior to accession, provided that it was acquired in good faith and that the filing date or, where applicable, the priority date or the date of acquisition in the new Member State of the earlier trade mark or other earlier right precedes the filing date or, where applicable, the priority date of the Community trade mark applied for. 4. A Community trade mark as referred to in paragraph 1 may not be declared invalid: — pursuant to Article 51 if the grounds for invalidity became applicable merely because of the accession of a new Member State, — pursuant to Article 52(1) and (2) if the earlier national right was registered, applied for or acquired in a new Member State prior to the date of accession. 5. The use of a Community trade mark as referred to in paragraph 1 may be prohibited pursuant to Articles 106 and 107, if the earlier trade mark or other earlier right was registered, applied for or acquired in good faith in the new Member State prior to the date of accession of that State; or, where applicable, has a priority date prior to the date of accession of that State.’ With regard to the Community Design, a new Article 110a of the Regulation resolving conflicts caused by the EU extension is intended as follows: 1. As from the date of accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (hereinafter referred to as “new Member State(s)”), a Community design protected or applied for pursuant to this Regulation before the date of accession shall be extended to the territory of those Member States in order to have equal effect throughout the Community. 2. The application for a registered Community design may not be refused on the basis of any of the grounds for non-registrability listed in Article 47(1), if these grounds became applicable merely because of the accession of a new Member State. 3. A Community design as referred to in paragraph 1 may not be declared invalid pursuant to Article 25(1) if the grounds for invalidity became applicable merely because of the accession of a new Member State. 4. The applicant or the holder of an earlier right in a new Member State may oppose the use of a Community design falling under Article 25(1)(d), (e) or (f) within the territory where the earlier right is protected. For the purpose of this provision, “earlier right” means a right acquired or applied for in good faith before accession. 5. Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 above shall also apply to unregistered Community designs. Pursuant to Article 11, a design which has not been made public within the territory of the Community shall not enjoy protection as an unregistered Community design.’ Re: EU is on the brink of PMMA accession.There isanother document available saying that on 19 September 2003 the Permanent Representatives Committee ("COREPER") unanimously approved both proposals, subject to finalisation by the Legal/Linguistic Experts. The text of the Decisions has meanwhile been finalised by the Legal/Linguistic Experts; see my earlier posting. It is therefore to be assumed that the Council will adopt the Decisions´as an "A" item on the agenda for one of its forthcoming meetings. In particular, this might happen on the meeting of the Competitiveness Council (Internal Market, Industry and Research) on November 10-11, 2003.
Thursday, October 09, 2003Consolidated version of the Proposal for EU-Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions available.A consolidated version of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions in accordance with the outcome of the European Parliament's first reading (Strasbourg, 22 to 25 September 2003) is availablehere.
Wednesday, October 08, 2003EU is on the brink of PMMA accession.The Council of the European Union has prepared aDraft Instrument of approval concerning the accession of the EU to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the International Registration of Marks (PMMA).
Moreover, a Draft Council Regulation (EC) No xx/2003 of amending Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark to give effect to the accession of the European Community to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks has also been prepared. This draft says, inter alia, "[...] Where an international application is filed, on the basis of a Community trade mark application, in a language other than one of the languages allowed under the Madrid Protocol for the filing of international applications, the Office should make its best efforts to arrange for the translation of the list of goods or services into the language indicated by the applicant in order for the application to be forwarded to the International Bureau in time to maintain the date of priority. [...] The international application shall be filed in one of the official languages of the European Community, using a form provided by the Office. Unless otherwise specified by the applicant on that form when he files the international application, the Office shall correspond with the applicant in the language of filing in a standard form. If the international application is filed in a language which is not one of the languages allowed under the Madrid Protocol, the applicant must indicate a second language from among those languages. This shall be the language in which the Office submits the international application to the International Bureau. Where the international application is filed in a language other than one of the languages allowed under the Madrid Protocol for the filing of international applications, the applicant may provide a translation of the list of goods or services in the language in which the international application is to be submitted to the International Bureau [...]"
Hence, this seems to be a very user-friendly (albeit probably expensive) solution of the language problem. Currently I do not have any indication as to when these instruments shall enter into force. Lawrence Lessig about "Software Ecosystems".In a recentarticle Professor Lawrence Lessig wrote: "[...] The point in each case is not that we'd be better off without proprietary technology, or without property at all. The point, instead, is one that has been obvious since the birth of our republic - that a balance between proprietary and nonproprietary property is better than either extreme. As Bradford Smith, general counsel of Microsoft Corp. has written about software, "Both open-source and commercial software are integral parts of the broader software ecosystem." Either alone, I might add, would produce a weaker 'software ecosystem'. [...]"
I currently think that this is an important conclusion which is also of relevance with regard to the current dispute on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. On the one hand, Mr. Stallman's adherers should acknowledge that the IP landscape will never be such that running a computerprogramm on a processor can under no circumstances constitute a patent infringement. On the other hand, reasonable steps should be undertaken by limiting the effects of patents that Free Software isn't eradicated, e.g. by exempting source codes from the scope of patents.
Monday, October 06, 2003EU Commission proposes new safe harbour for the licensing of patents and know how.Asreported on the RAPID website, the European Commission is seeking comments on changes to the competition rules applicable to the licensing of patents, know how and software copyright. Technology transfer licensing agreements currently benefit of a block exemption (= safe harbour) if certain conditions are met. The Commission proposes a number of changes to the block exemption that will reduce the regulatory burden for companies, while ensuring an effective control of agreements between companies holding significant market power. The new approach must be seen in combination with the modernisation of the European Union's enforcement rules for antitrust which will come into force in May 2004.
The block exemption regulation will only have a black list. By doing away with the white and grey lists of the current regulation, the strait jacket effect is avoided and the scope of the regulation is extended and made more flexible: whatever is not explicitly excluded from the block exemption is now exempted; The scope of the new rules is also extended by covering all types of technology transfer agreements for the production of goods or services. The new regulation is proposed to cover not only patent and know-how licensing but also software copyright licensing, as requested by many of those who commented on the Evaluation Report. Where the Commission does not have the powers to adopt a block exemption regulation, as for patent pools and for copyright licensing in general, the guidelines will give clear guidance as to future enforcement policy. The new rules will make a clear distinction between licensing between competitors and licensing between non-competitors. For obvious reasons competition policy should distinguish between licensing between competitors and between non-competitors as in particular the applicable hardcore list should differ. Competition problems are more likely to arise in licensing between competitors than in licensing between non-competitors. The text of the Consultation document is available here. The Commission invites all interested parties to send their comments on the proposed new rules by 26 November 2003.
Thursday, October 02, 2003Official Minutes of a Debate of the German Bundestag: Design protection reform bill, biotech patents reform bill.Although not fresh matter but as old as June 26, 2003, readers with a sufficient command of the German language might be interested in two excerpts from the Official Minutes of the fifty-third sitting of the Lower House ("Bundestag") of the German Parliament concerning thereform bill amending the German Act on Registered Designs (excerpt_1) and on the bill for writing the Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 06 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions into national German Law (excerpt_2).
Wednesday, October 01, 2003The Community Patent at the Competitiveness Council.During the past weeks of intensive public debate and depressing news from the European Parliament concerning the draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions the fate of the Community Patent might have been more hidden in the background. In fact, on its session on September 22, 2003 the EU Competitiveness Council had concluded as follows[Page 11]:
"[...] The Council took note of a progress report on the state of play regarding the draft Regulation creating a Community Patent. The Council confirmed the importance it attaches to concluding work on all aspects of the Community patent system as soon as possible. Therefore, the Council invited the Permanent Representatives Committee to examine pending questions in order to be in a position to reach a political agreement on the draft Regulation and on the necessary modifications of the European Patent Convention at one of its November meetings. The aim of the proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community Patent is to provide for the creation of a single industrial property right for the whole Community, to be granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich. It aims at eliminating the distortions of competition created by the territorial nature of national protection rights and ensuring the free movement of goods protected by patents. Alongside this draft Regulation, amendments will have to be made to the European Patent Convention to enable the European Patent Office to play its part in the Community patent system. There is also a need to introduce jurisdictional arrangements in the draft Regulation and to create, through the future Commission proposals, a judicial panel "Community Patent Court", to decide on legal disputes in respect of Community patents. [...]" Hence, now it is up to the Permanent Representatives Committee ("COREPER") to deliberate on the Community Patent in closed session in order to find out how to carry on with this very important project.
FFII e.V. is already threatening the EU Community Patent project. However, they will hardly find any lever to sabotage this matter because of in this case the involvement of the European Parliament is merely of consultatory nature.
| ||||||||||||||||
