- having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2005 on the mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy,
- having regard to the Commission Communication of 12 April 2005 on the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs 2005-2008,
- having regard to the Commission Communication of 20 July 2005 on Common Actions for Growth and Employment: The Community Lisbon Programme,
- having regard to the 25 national Lisbon reform programmes as presented by the Member States,
- having regard to the Commission Communication of 25 January 2006 entitled 'Annual Progress Report on Growth and Jobs',
- having regard to the European Council conclusions of March 2000, March 2001, March 2005 and October 2005,
- having regard to Rule 103(2) of its Rules of Procedure,
[...] 43. Stresses the need for reforming the current intellectual property rights legislation; notes that the cost of registering a patent in the EU varies between EURO 37 500 and EURO 57 000 while the same process only costs around EURO 10 000 in the USA and that the length and complexity of the patent procedures are major obstacles to small SMEs; calls on the Commission to ensure proper protection of intellectual property rights and to present as soon as possible a proposal for harmonisation and mutual recognition of patent laws in Member States to create greater legal certainty and promote innovation; [...]"
The important key phrase appears to be as follows:
"[...] calls on the Commission to ensure proper protection of intellectual prsoperty rights and to present as soon as possible a proposal for harmonisation and mutual recognition of patent laws in Member States to create greater legal certainty and promote innovation [...]"
This might well be seen as an attempt to weaken the position of the centralised European Patent Office (EPO) in favour of the busines of the national Patent Offices throughout the EU. I do not know for sure but there might be some inner link with the European Strategy Debate as mentioned earlier in this posting.
Anyway, the Motion was not rubber-stamped but got some amendmends. FFII and the well-known anti-patent campaigner Mr. Müller offered heavy critics to its gist, blaming Mr. Lehne MEP for, in his view, undue pro-patent influence:
"[...] While 'mutual recognition of patent laws' is a term that can be interpreted in different ways, there is no doubt what the sponsor of this article, Mr. Klaus Heiner Lehne MEP (a German conservative), has in mind: the mutual recognition of national patents by the EU member states.
I recently received a copy of a memorandum that he sent to some of his MEP colleagues on November 29, 2005, entitled ?Patent initiative for a new European patent law?. In the first part of the memo, he explains why he believes the negotiations between the EU member states on a proposal for an EU-wide community patent are at deadlock. [...]"
"[...] The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) and Florian Mueller, the founder of the NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign, lobbied MEPs to vote against the related passage of a proposed resolution, stressing that the mutual recognition of national patents 'would result in a flood of patent suits all over Europe, lower quality standards, and ever more software patents', among other things because patent applicants would 'shop around' to find patent offices that are most willing to grant patents which would then be valid in the entire EU. [...]"
"[...] And I have excellent news from Strasbourg: A majority of MEPs voted against Lehne's mutual-recognition proposal!
After becoming aware of the proposed resolution on Monday, the FFII and I immediately informed our allies in the parliament. As a result, the Greens/EFA group introduced an amendment to the resolution, and that amendment would have replaced item 43 of the resolution with a new text. That other text would have called for a proposal for a community patent instead of mutual recognition. It would have been the lesser evil. That alternative item 43 fell through, but something even better happened:
At the request of the EPP-ED and ALDE groups, there was a so-called split vote on item 43. A split vote in the European Parliament means that a particular text is not put to the vote as a whole, but first there is a vote on the largest part of a proposed article, and then there are separate votes on controversial passages, such as individual words. In this case, there was a split vote on whether or not to include 'mutual recognition' in the resolution, and a majority voted against that insertion.
I'm so relieved. It wouldn't have been the end of the world if that call for a proposal for mutual recognition had gone through, but it would have been a disappointing start for us with respect to the EU's new patent policy initiative, and it would have had negative effects for the future.
Fortunately, a majority of MEPs shared our concerns that the mutual recognition of national patents by the EU member states would open the floodgates and result in widespread patent litigation all over Europe. What Lehne had in mind would have been contrary to the spirit of previous EP decisions on patent policy. While I still the text adopted today contains some propagandistic statements concerning patents that I dislike, it's pretty innocuous now. It just calls on the Commission to make a proposal for the harmonization of European patent laws, which I don't necessarily object to. [...]"
"[...] After we had alerted her yesterday to the problematic aspects of the original version of paragraph 43 of the proposed motion on innovation policy, Piia-Noora raised the mutual recognition issue in the group meeting and proposed to modify that article.
The solution she initially suggested would have been for the EPP-ED group to support amendment 31, which the Greens/EFA group filed late on Monday (also after we raised awareness). That amendment would have replaced the paragraph in question with a pretty innocuous one that had previously received the support of a majority of the European Parliament on December 15.
The solution for which the EPP-ED finally settled, and which from my perspective is near-perfect anyway, was a split vote on paragraph 43. Without the split vote, MEPs would have had to support paragraph 43 as a whole (take it over leave it). Thanks to the split vote, MEPs had the freedom to vote in favor of most of the text while making separate decisions on whether or not to insert certain words. The words ?mutual recognition? were put to such a vote, and a majority voted against. [...]"
What can be said in view of all this ado? Well, Mr Müller recently has made perfectly clear that his fight is not restricted to the realm of so-called "software patents" but aims to weaken the patent system in its entirety:
"[...] A 180-degree turn around from patent inflation must be the single highest priority in patent policy. In order for any patent policy initiative to credibly address the interests of innovation and of the economy at large, it must aim at a trend reversal concerning the annual number of patents issued, specifying future target numbers of new patents to be issued and laying out a strategy for reaching those targets. [...]"
It appears as if Mr. Müller acts up as the big reformer of the patent system but actually he merely intends to cripple it. In the European Parliament he again had quite a walk-over but the resolution of the Parliament has little or even no practical effect. This should not be overlooked. In the EU Council Mr. Müller's position might have fewer friends. From Document 7281/06 titled "Contribution of the Competitiveness Council to the Spring European Council 2006" we learn:
"[...] The completion of an effective legal framework at EU and international level for protecting intellectual property rights remains crucial. [...]"
Anyway, users and supporters of the patent system should well be on the qui vive. Ah, and please do not forget to prepare and file some constructive submission with the EU Commission in response to the open consultation process by
Motion for a Resolution of the European Parliament on the input to the 
this posting.