BLOG@IPJUR.COMCalendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesOther StuffBlog Administration |
EU Patent Is Dead! Long Live "European Patent With Unitary Effect."Thursday, April 14. 2011Tools
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I must repeat that France and Germany are at least more responsible than Spain and Italy.
Moreover, I understand that this is a limitation of the grant rights re most countries "a European patent with unitary effect may only be limited, licensed, transferred, revoked or lapse in respect of all the participating Member States." So I do not know if a unitary effect is good business for private inventor or small companies.
I also would like to stress that Italy and Spain were (allegedly) ready to agree on an English system only.
If we are frank, the english system only would have been much better than the EN-DE-FR system. So, I kindly ask Mr. Horns to review his statement that no agreement could be found because of Italy and Spain. In all honesty, no meaningful agreement could be found because of France and Germany.
Dear Mssrs. Rivoli and Yanez,
I believe you still have to explain why you believe that Germany and France were guilty. Neither Italy nor Spain have ever made a serious proposal regarding the actual implementation of the "English-only" option. This option would have implied either taking the EU patent out of the EP patent, or deeply changing both the EPC and the organisation of the EPO. The current proposal is by far the most pragmatic, in terms of using the available legal and administrative resources. The Italian and Spanish "English-only" proposals were noisily announced, but extremely short in detail despite their wide-ranging implications. The obvious conclusion is that they were never seriously meant, but only aimed at muddying the waters. This impression is further confirmed by their many contradictory statements. The Spanish government in particular has defended the "English only" option while simultaneously proclaiming that only patents fully translated into Spanish will ever be enforceable in Spain. Moreover, quite significantly, neither Spain nor Italy have proposed the "English-only" option for Community trademarks. And it is also quite curious that, whereas Spain and Italy loudly accuse the EPO's trilingual regime of being "discriminatory" (despite having signed to it when they acceded the EPOrg), they wouldn't have the same objection against either the "English-only" option or a pentalingual regime like OHIM's (and this despite other languages, like Dutch, more significant in terms of patents than either Italian or Spanish, being left out). In any case, the right place to put the EPO on an English-only path would have been the negotiations for the EPC 2000. I definitely do not remember Italy or Spain pressing that point there. Nor have Italy or Spain made a first step towards simplifying life for patentees by signing the London Agreement. But finally, the proof is in the pudding: France and Germany have found agreement with another 23 countries. Italy and Spain can't even agree among themselves. You'll excuse me if I choose to remain anonymous: I happen to be Spanish myself.
I could not agree more with Anonymous (I am Spanish too). Moreover, an additional fact that shows that the Spanish government was pro the new monolingual system is the new plan of the Spanish Government to promote the Intellectual property in Spain (the so-called Plan PI). Such Plan, which is dated in July 2010, states that the SPTO would make effort to promote the use of Spanish in the International treaties as a "working language”, not the use of only English. "
Precisely. Another proof of the absolute lack of commitment of the Spanish government to the "English-only" proposal is that, under Spanish law, Spanish applicants actually are not allowed to file European patent applications directly in English: all direct European patent applications must go through the SPTO and be in Spanish or have a Spanish translation, so that the Ministry of Defence (which 30 years after joining NATO still apparently does not have any English-speaking officials) can ensure that your patent application for, say, a novel and inventive toothbrush, does not endanger the national security.
|
ProfileLinkedIn GroupsBlogroll
Bob Sutor's Website and Blog
Tangible IP Danny Weitzner - Open Internet Policy IAM magazine - Blog Intellectual Property Watch IP Asset Maximizer Blog IPKat - news and fun for everyone! The Invent Blog® Patent Baristas Patent Law Blog (Patently-O) Peer to Patent Class 46 - for your European trade mark news NIPC IP/IT Update Patent Docs Better Mousetrap Blog BlawgIT phosita TechnoLlama Suepo Visae Patentes CC LicenceExcept where otherwise noted, content on this site is licenced under the terms of a Creative Commons 3.0 Licence as follows: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||