Public Hearing on 12 July 2006 - English Transcripts

---

Transcription of the public hearing on the Future of Patent Policy in Europe.

---

v002.wav

02-JacquelineMinor-en,00:07:20-00:17:51

Mrs Jacqueline MINOR

[…]

The languages spoken for the public hearing will be English, French, German and Italian in addition. We have a very short time, so we have to go very fast.

Mr Thierry STOLL

Thank you Jacky! Ladies and gentlemen. It is with great pleasure that I welcome you to this public hearing on the future of the European patent policy. It is a very tiny debate at the very of start of the finish presidency who has decided to put innovation right at the centre of the EU efforts to prove its competitiveness. Today’ hearing presents the preliminary findings. The consultation was hold in January prompted by the continuing lack of progress on the Community Patent, the European Parliament’s rejection of the proposed directive on CII and subsequently by the MEPs in particular in the debate with the European Commission. Commissioner McCreevy wants to get things moving and to find an efficient and broad accepted way for the future patent policy in Europe. Our aim is to collect your views as stakeholders to be taken in the near future to improve the patent system in Europe and to know how the European Community can best contribute to create an IPR environment in which all EU businesses could flourish. The level of participation has exceeded our most optimistic expectations and we can say that the objectives have been largely fulfilled. More than 2,500 contributions were received coming from all stakeholders from individuals to multinational companies representing many sectors of industries from new technologies with many ICT and biotech companies and professionals and more traditional industries such as the pharmaceuticals, chemicals or automotives. Interests groups among stakeholders were thus represented industries, patent professionals, researchers, inventors. This wide range of interests expressed in the consultations responsive is very important for us – policy makers – and we could not have hope for a more comprehensive participation. Replies coming from all over Europe and beyond and this pan European interest is a good sign for the future of the European patent system. Some member state such as CZ Republic and Sweden organized internal consultations on the basis of our questionnaire waking up some stakeholders who might not have participated otherwise. We are particularly pleased with the results of the consultation tool developed our colleagues in the Enterprise DG and we would like to associate more European SMEs in this type of exercise. 664 SMEs from 70 member states were interviewed and consulted in the framework of this exercise. The responses complemented those from a large number of other SMEs, some of which send us individual contributions while other expressed support for submission drafted by associations representing particular interests of their sector. The very high participation rate during the written phase to which many of you contributed and your presence hear today is very important to us. It underlines the desire for a genuine debate on the fundamentals of the European patent system. It goes without saying that the right framework for patent protection is essential for business. A good patent system stimulates and rewards innovation leads to the successful development of the new products and processes and that contributes to generate growth and new jobs. Designing a good patent system is a challenge and if we get the legal framework wrong, we run for distorting competition. Equally, we should not lose the sight of the wide impact of IPR and its consequences on the society at large, consumers and patients for instance. For that reason your contribution and your presence today representing a wide range of interest is particularly helpful for us. As you are aware, the hearing will be based on the main issues raised in the consultations. Thus, the debate will focus on four major topics. First, the principles and values of the future patent system. Second, the proposed Community patent system. Third, the London Protocol and the EPLA. Fourth, the possible area for harmonization at a community level. Now, we will now continue analysing the written results together with today’s debate. We intend to publish the written responses in full and the comprehensive and detailed report summarizing the written consultation and today’s debate. We expect this report to be ready sometime in the autumn. Thereafter, we will evaluate which policy options will best translate the results of the consultation into practice and Commissioner McCreevy will present them to you as soon as the decision is taken. Before I leave the floor to you, I would like to thank you for all the time and efforts that to your responsive and for coming hear today. We are looking forward to hear your view today and to your contributions to the patent policy in Europe, for Europe. And I won’t delay the debate any further I wish you all a very good discussion.

Mrs Jacqueline MINOR

Thank you very much! And just before getting down to the debate, may I say a few words. My role as a chairman is to make sure that everyone gets the maximum benefits from this conference into hearing the maximum views as possible. In view of the enormous number of written replies we received, we scheduled here the maximum number of possible speakers to understand the view of all stakeholders. However, everyone should try to respect the limited-speaking time, I would ask each speaker today to catch the essential, to speak not to fast, naturally and slowly for the interpreters. We do have a timing device which will warn you during your speaking-time – and you will get a signal one minute before the end of your time, and a more brutal signal at the end of your speak. You are welcome to speak in or in French, in English or in Italian. We have at the end of the day an open debate. Again, to save time we would like to give to the assistants (Regina or Selene) your name and the topic you would like to speak. One final word, the European Commission has only one address today and what you have to understand is that there is no subtext here, I mean we are here with an open eye and an open hear. Finally, I would add that at the end of each panel, I will do a little summary. Thank you!

03-ErikNooteboom-en,00:17:51-00:53:35

Erik Nooteboom presentation

04-GiuseppeGargani-it,00:53:40-01:11:11

Signore e Signori, ringrazio la Commissione europea per avermi invitato ad intervenire in rappresentanza del Parlamento europeo a questa audizione così importante per delineare il futuro del sistema brevettuale in Europa. In effetti, la commissione giuridica che ho l'onore di presiedere ha già promosso, il 31 gennaio 2006, un'iniziativa di questo tipo, ottenendo da esperti qualificati e rappresentanti degli interessi organizzati utili indicazioni sulla strada da seguire. Signore e signori, l'obiettivo di dare un futuro alla politica dei brevetti in Europa è essenziale per il corretto funzionamento del mercato interno, la competitività dell'Europa ed è uno dei pilastri della Strategia di Lisbona. Ma è una sfida ardua questa, perchè i tentativi che abbiamo fatto sinora sono falliti: la Convenzione di Lussemburgo giace senza prospettive e l'Approccio Comune del Consiglio del 2003 non rappresenta una base utile di discussione. E gli strumenti che abbiamo a disposizione sono insufficienti: la Convenzione di Monaco del 1973 si limita a garantire l'estensione della protezione dei brevetti nazionali negli Stati membri firmatari della Convenzione. Quello della Convenzione di Monaco non è dunque un brevetto comune, ma un fascio di brevetti nazionali, sottoposti all'interpretazione, spesso divergente, dei giudici nazionali. Secondo recenti studi la registrazione di un brevetto nell'Unione europea costa tra i 37.500 e 57.000 Euro, contro i 10.000 Euro degli Stati Uniti, per non parlare della lunghezza e della complessità delle procedure da rispettare. Un simile divario nei costi non ce lo possiamo più permettere. In realtà le imprese europee hanno un rilevante interesse a poter disporre di una protezione omogenea per le proprie innovazioni, estesa a tutto il territorio dell'Unione Europea. Numerosissime imprese, si pensi ad esempio alle PMI operanti nei c.d. distretti industriali, sono infatti caratterizzate da una forte vocazione all’esportazione ed alla costituzione di joint-ventures in altri Paesi dell’Unione Europea. L’istituzione del brevetto comunitario, un titolo di protezione unico per tutta l’UE, rappresenta pertanto un passo di fondamentale importanza per aumentare la competitività delle imprese europee rispetto ai concorrenti americani e giapponesi, che già dispongono di titoli di protezione unitari, ottenibili a costi ragionevoli. Ma perchè serva veramente il brevetto comunitario deve avere alcune caratteristiche fondamentali: semplicità di accesso, certezza legale del titolo e costi contenuti. La qualità del brevetto deve essere garantita, non basta avere un brevetto qualunque, magari oggetto di contenzioso in tutta Europa. Se così fosse, il problema dei costi uscirebbe dalla porta per rientrare dalla finestra. Le proposte sinora esaminate dalle istituzioni comunitarie, in particolare l'Approccio comune del 2003, presentano numerose criticità proprio in termini di costi e di certezza legale del titolo, che rischiano di vanificare i vantaggi derivanti dall’adozione di un brevetto comunitario. Gli aspetti più problematici delle proposte riguardano in particolare il regime linguistico. L'idea che la domanda di brevetto possa essere presentata in una delle tre lingue ufficiali del sistema del brevetto europeo (inglese, francese o tedesco) a scelta del richiedente, cui andrebbe, però, allegata una traduzione del testo delle rivendicazioni in tutte le lingue ufficiali dell’UE non è interessante per le imprese europee. Essa aumenterebbe in maniera significativa il costo di brevettazione. Inoltre, se la traduzione rappresenta una condizione di validità del brevetto nei singoli Stati Membri ciò va a discapito dell'l’unitarietà del titolo in quanto piccole differenze nella traduzione della documentazione potrebbero determinare una diversa efficacia del brevetto nei vari paesi europei. Il regime del multilinguismo diventa poi un onere ulteriore se esso viene esteso anche al sistema giurisdizionale. Se la lingua ufficiale della procedura davanti alla Corte del Brevetto Comunitario sarà la lingua del convenuto in giudizio ciò che richiederà di volta in volta la traduzione dell’intera documentazione, unitamente a tutti gli atti di giudizio, in una lingua eventualmente diversa da quella utilizzata per la domanda di brevetto. Come è evidente, il sistema proposto presenta costi troppo elevati, stimati intorno ai 79.000 Euro. Ciò rende ovviamente meno attraente per le imprese, soprattutto quelle dotate di una limitata capacità finanziaria, l’utilizzo di uno strumento di protezione importante. Dobbiamo dunque voltare pagina e dare vita ad una nuova iniziativa politica, che da un lato punti a creare un brevetto unitario e a livello europeo e dall'altro porti alla piena integrazione della Comunità nella Convenzione di Monaco. Il brevetto comunitario deve essere di facile accesso: dobbiamo al massimo l’onere derivante dalle traduzioni della documentazione brevettuale. Quello che dobbiamo fare è abbandonare il sistema del multilinguismo. Il Parlamento europeo ha sempre sostenuto la necessità di ridurre il numero delle lingue ufficiali per abbattere i costi di brevettazione. In particolare la collega Ana Palacio, qualche anno fa sostenne con forza l'opzione dell'’inglese quale unica lingua di brevettazione. Una posizione questa che mi risulta essere particolarmente gradita al mondo dell'industria. Quella dell'inglese è una soluzione pragmatica, perchè l'inglese è la lingua di fatto maggiormente utilizzata da chi richiede la protezione brevettuale. In via subordinata si potrebbero proporre altre soluzioni: una di queste è il regime linguistico previsto dal regolamento sul marchio comunitario, che sta funzionando molto bene. Un'altra via potrebbe essere quella recentemente proposta dal collega Klaus heiner Lehne: il brevetto dovrebbe essere concesso nella lingua del richiedente e tradotto in inglese. Se sorge una controversia davanti ad un Tribunale la cui lingua del procedimento è diversa, i documenti necessari dovrebbero essere tradotti in questa lingua. Naturalmente lo stesso regime linguistico seguito per la concessione del brevetto dovrebbe valere per il contenzioso. Tenuto conto delle difficoltà incontrate dal brevetto comunitario taluni propongono come alternativa un'armonizzazione dei diritti nazionali. In realtà il diritto dei brevetti ha già vissuto un periodo di armonizzazione nel corso degli ultimi decenni. La Convenzione sul Brevetto europeo e l'accordo Trips hanno contribuito in modo sostanziale a ricondurre gli ordinamenti nazionali verso un modello uniforme. A mio avviso non sono perciò necessari ulteriori interventi di armonizzazione, almeno dal punto di vista sostanziale. Anche perchè la scarsa omogeneità nella protezione è dovuta principalmente alla mancanza di uniformità delle interpretazioni giudiziarie del diritto da parte delle giurisdizioni nazionali. Ad avviso del Parlamento europeo un sistema giurisdizionale efficace e facilmente accessibile dovrebbe prevedere una giurisdizione di prima istanza nazionale specializzata, unita ad una seconda istanza comunitaria centrale che assicuri l'uniformità e l'omogeneità dell'interpretazione. Se consideriamo che i giudici nazionali sono anche giudici comunitari, dobbiamo coerentemente prevedere che la prima istanza sia nazionale. A breve termine e in attesa che il sistema del brevetto comunitario divenga operativo, le differenze potrebbero essere superate con l'adesione della Comunità europea alla Convenzione di Monaco, la quale diventerebbe a quel punto diritto comunitario sottoposto all'interpretazione uniforme da parte della Corte di giustizia delle comunità europee. Le preoccupazioni circa un' incompatibilità tra l'adesione alla Convenzione di Monaco e il brevetto comunitario non sembrano fondate: gli esperti intervenuti all'audizione cheabbiamo tenuto il 31 gennaio scorso ci hanno garantito che i due sistemi possono perfettamente convivere. L'adesione alla Convenzione di Monaco avrebbe come conseguenza l'adeguamento del sistema comunitario al Protocollo di Londra sul regime linguistico e all'EPLA relativo al sistema giurisdizionale. Le recenti prese di posizione del Parlamento francese a favore della ratifica da parte francese tanto del Protocollo di Londra sul regime linguistico che dell'EPLA aprono una prospettiva interessante a questo riguardo. La Corte di giustizia sarebbe inoltre chiamata a pronunciarsi sull'applicazione di questi atti con benefici importanti sull'uniformità di interpretazione, la certezza giuridica e la prevedibilità delle decisioni giudiziarie in tutta Europa. L'adesione della Comunità alla Convenzione di Monaco avrebbe anche l'effetto di rendere l'Ufficio Europeo dei Brevetti responsabile dal punto di vista politico e democratico del modo in cui applica la Convenzione. E'questa una preoccupazione sollevata dal Parlamento europeo in varie occasioni, in particolare per quanto concerne la concessione di brevetti in materia di biotecnologie. Il Parlamento europeo ha diritto e vuole partecipare attivamente anche all'adattamento dell' acquis necessario per l'adesione alla Convenzione di Monaco. In questo contesto si dovranno prevedere misure per minimizzare i rischi legati alle violazioni involontarie, ridurre i casi brevetti concessi erroneamente ed introdurre sistemi alternativi di soluzione delle controversie. Signore e Signori, se sappiamo creare una forte e condivisa volontà politica, unita ad un sano pragmatismo, cui concorrono le istituzioni europee, gli Stati membri e i rappresentanti degli interessi organizzati possiamo instaurare un sistema di protezione brevettuale utile ed efficace per l'Europa. E' tempo di agire: ce lo impongono le sfide globali che dobbiamo affrontare se non vogliamo che il Nostro Continente divenga marginale nello scacchiere mondiale.

05-MichelDuvall-en,01:11:52-01-01:22:55

The discussion on the functioning of the patent law is necessary. It rises some fundamental questions. First, what is the influence of the patent system to the economy? Second, who is the user of the patent system? Third, what is the place of industrial property in the system of the European Law? Four, what should the features of the property, including industrial property, be? First. Patent system and the economy The usefulness of the patent system is impossible to prove. Anyway it has limited influence on the development of the economy, including foreign investments. The reason is that patent protection is but one of many factors affecting the business decisions. To take a historical example (from the 19th century), in Switzerland even a total non-existence of patent protection was not an obstacle for development; to look at modern times - China has been a case in point. So we can still rely on the well-known opinion, expressed by Professor Fritz Machlup half a century ago in his report to the US Congress, that if the patent system had not been introduced, there would be no sufficient grounds to demand it; but if it is already working, similarly there are no grounds to abolish it. The point is that discussing the basic problems of the patent system we should be very pragmatic. Second. Users of the patent system The use of the patent system suffers from an uneven distribution. For example, in 2005 nearly 70% of the PCT applications originated in only three countries (the USA, Japan and Germany). Besides, studies show that the practical significance of patent protection for individual sectors is not consistent: it is huge in the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, smaller in the engineering and metallurgical industries, and quite tiny in many other branches. Third. The place of industrial property in the system of the European Law Let’s begin with the statement that the patent rules are de facto harmonized. In particular, the patentability criteria are the same across the EU countries. This means that the same technical solution should be either patented or not patented by the European Patent Office and by the patent offices of the Member States alike. In accordance with articles 28 and 29 of the Treaty establishing European Community, quantitative restrictions on imports and exports and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be prohibited between Member States. Article 30 allows restrictions justified on grounds of the protection of industrial property. So, the basic rule of the European Community is the free movement of goods and the exclusivity deriving from industrial property rights is an exception. In other words, legal exclusivity which is not justified, violates the competition rules. The problem is that the quality of patents granted is not a Member State’s domestic problem. If they are weak in a sense that in fact they do not fulfil the legal requirements, they are outside the scope of exception allowed by article 30, and the exclusivity violates the rule of free movement of goods. In my opinion the following conclusions follow from these objectives: First, it is contrary to the European Law if a patent for the same invention is granted in Member State “A” and refused in state “B”. Second, it is contrary to the European Law if a patent for the same invention has been found invalid in Member State “A” and is still in force in state “B”. Nevertheless these objectives cannot be achieved unless there is a European invalidation procedure. So, the establishment of a European Patent Litigation System is necessary. The ways of reaching this aim may be different. One of them may follow the draft prepared by the Commission. The good basis could also be provided by the Council Regulation No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Article 81 and 82 of the Treaty, where a similar problem dealing with the competition law has been settled. I am convinced that such a system should control all patents, including those granted by the national patent offices. Being more realistic, we should start with the European Patents. The number of patent systems is also relevant here. The question arises if one system, namely a community system, would not be a better option than two (or even three). One can say that each system of national monopoly is contrary to the common market, leading to its division. By introducing the community patent the risk of infringing a national patent due to the movement of goods from one EU Member State to another would be practically eliminated. The quality of the community patents would certainly be higher and the costs difference would mainly results from the claims translations. Of course I realize that today a single European patent system cannot be a reality, but I am convinced that this is our future. One of the solutions could also be the mutual recognition of patents issued by national patent offices, but this issue would need a through-study which should balance advantages and disadvantages of such a system. If patents are “strong” (that is they cover technical solutions which would be unknown without inventors disclosing them), the exclusivity may be effective and credible within society. Not only the time-limited exclusivity would be fully justified but, moreover, the scope of restrictions could be smaller than that defined by the Technology Transfer Block Exemption of 2004 and the Guidelines. The rules contained in the American Guidelines dealing with licensing of intellectual property of 1995 could be considered in full. So, restricting the patent issuance regime could be combined with broadening the scope of exclusivity use in full. In such a way, patent law would not be eroded by competition authorities. Fouthly. The features of property (including industrial property) The owner of a real property can build a fence – what is inside, belongs to him, what is outside – doesn’t. It is easy for the third person to draw a border line based on an official register. In my opinion one of the basic disadvantages of the patent system is that because of many historical reasons, the scope of patents is not clear. On the one hand, in accordance with article 69 of the European Patent Convention, the extent of the protection conferred by a European Patent or a European Patent Application shall be determined by the term of the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. So, it seems to be easy to know a scope of a patent, but on the other hand the Protocol on the Interpretation of art. 69 says that the provision should not be interpreted in the sense that the extend of the protection is to be understood as that defined by the strict, literal meaning of the wording used in the claims, the description and drawings being employed only for the purpose of resolving an ambiguity found in the claims. Neither should it be interpreted in the sense that the claims serve only as a guideline and that actual protection conferred may extend to what, from consideration of the description and drawings by a person skilled in the art, the patentee has contemplated. On the contrary, it is to be interpreted as defining a position between these extremes which combines a fair protection for the patentee with a reasonable degree of certainty for third parties. This view of protection is theoretically justified as it balances the interests of the patentees and the general public. As a matter of fact, however, the scope of protection is quite unclear. The problem is that during the infringement investigation, the “balancing of interests” is impossible because of binary system of settlement of disputes. Namely a court may alternatively decide that infringement has or has not been committed. Thus, there is no room for “balancing of interests” in the case of a specific judgement. The problem is aggravated by the different interpretation of the claims in various EU countries. This results in contradictory decisions with respect to the same patent. The EPILADY case is a classic example. In the current situation there is no legal certainty because even a scrupulous patent examination does not ensure that an entrepreneur’s action not covered by the patent claims will not infringe the patent. So, the scope of the European patent should be reconsidered. Maybe the solution is to take the description into account only in cases where the content of the claims is ambiguous. It would be in line with the basic rule, which already existed in the Roman law: clara non sunt interpretanda; that is: what is clear cannot be interpreted. I am of the opinion that such a way of interpretation would be fair also for the patentees. We should have in mind that most of patentees are not inventors, but professionals, being also represented by professionals, i.e. patent attorneys. So, they try to obtain as much protection as possible. If after a long patent procedure and discussion with the patent office the patent claims are drafted in a certain way, there is no reason to give more protection than a third person could expect reading these claims. Changing the way of interpretation of patent claims would make the whole patent system cheaper. Firstly, the basic issue of most of the infringement cases, i.e. what is a scope of exclusive rights, and the need of experts practically disappear. Courts could concentrate on problems which they are familiar with, such as damages. Secondly, it would be enough to translate only patent claims into all official languages. In such a way patent infringements cases should be predictable, fast and cheap. In my presentation I have focused on a few issues regarding the patent fundamentals. Crucial to the proper performance of the patent system are, in my opinion, the following things: first - European Patent Litigation System should be established; second - the scope of the European patent should be reconsidered.

06-nothing-en,01:22:55-01:52:30

07-ThierrySueur-en,01:52:30-01:58:55

Merci Madame, Je m’exprimerai en français, je suis responsable de la propriété intellectuelle de la société Air Liquide, mais je vais m’exprimer ici au nom du Mouvement des entreprises de France, le Medef, qui représente les entreprises françaises, petites, moyennes et grandes. Je m’exprimerai également au nom de Licensing Executive Society (LES) qui rassemble à peu près 12,000 membres dans le monde dans environ 100 pays et qui se focalise sur la valorisation de la propriété intellectuelle. Alors, le rôle du brevet, repartons des bases. Un droit temporaire accordé à contre une partie d’une divulgation. C’est une des mesure acceptée dans le monde pour soutenir l’innovation, sachant que l’innovation est la clef de la croissance et de l’activité mais que l’innovation est un métier à risque où le succès n’est pas garanti, il est donc important d’assister les innovateurs. Je voudrai insister sur l’aspect divulgation, d’abord parce qu’elle est faite par l’inventeur avant même de savoir s’il aura un droit exclusif, donc la société est toujours gagnante sur cet aspect. D’autre part, la divulgation est clef. On dit souvent vous en entreprises vous êtes pour les brevets parce que vous être du côté du titulaire. Ceux qui disent cela ne savent pas de quoi ils parlent. Une grande entreprise, y compris la mienne, qui est leader mondial dans son domaine, a toujours moins de brevets que tous ses concurrents. Or, j’estime que l’ensemble des brevets, y compris ceux de mes concurrents me sont utiles. Pourquoi ? Parce que le progrès naît du progrès. L’invention naît de l’invention. C’est parce que mes concurrents on décidé que j’en aurai et c’est parce que je vois leur brevets que je vais trouver des solutions alternatives qui profiteront aux consommateurs. D’autres parts, c’est une source d’intelligence économique pour bien comprendre la stratégie des concurrents. J’insiste là-dessus parce que je pense que l’UE est probablement en retard dans le monde dans cet aspect, d’autres parts les brevets favorisent des transferts de technologies. On parle beaucoup des transferts de brevets mais on parle moins de l’expansion des transferts de technologies, qui créent de l’activité dans le monde. Alors notre système a des insuffisances, il repose sur la Convention de Munich et un système de brevet cohérent comprend d’une part un office des brevets qui examine et qui va accorder ou rejeter les brevets, il comprend aussi un système juridictionnel qui d’une part contrôle implicitement l’office et qui d’autres parts détermine les règles du jeu sur la porté, la validité des brevets et sanctionne la contrefaçon. Notre système en Europe est bancal, il est bancal parce qu’il n’y a pas de système et ceci affecte à mon sens gravement le jeu de la concurrence en Europe. Nous parlions tout à l’heure de football. Imaginez-vous un contentieux. On se serait mis d’accord pour avoir le même ballon, on aurait divisé le terrain de jeu en 25 parties, avec 25 arbitres qui vont arbitrer. C’est ça l’Europe et bien croyez moi ça gêne un peu le jeu de la concurrence. D’autres parts, nous n’avons pas l’option d’obtenir un brevet communautaire, or le brevet, c’est un outil d’économiste, il doit avoir une cohérence entre le territoire et l’outil. Il doit y avoir cohérence sur ce point. Un système des brevets doit être accessible et les problèmes de coûts liés aux traductions qui ne sont pas lues empêchent les PME d’y avoir accès normal. Enfin, un système des brevets doit être fondé sur la qualité, un système doit être neutre et des efforts doivent être faits sur ce point Quelles sont les actions qui sont requises ? D’abord la création d’un système juridictionnel Rendre le système accessible en ratifiant l’accord de Londres. D’autres parts, soutenir les efforts de l’office européen des brevets sur la qualité afin de ne pas fausser le jeu de la concurrence. L’office doit être neutre, pas pro-brevets, pas anti-brevets, il doit faire le partage et appliquer la loi. Enfin, l’Union européenne doit être accessible par un brevet, donc le brevet communautaire. Et enfin, dernier point, rien ne peut se faire sans une véritable politique des brevets. Quand on entend les débats, notamment ceux que nous avons eu au Parlement l’année dernière, on a l’impression d’assister à une guerre de religion. Mais le brevet n’est pas un acte de foi, le brevet est un acte de raison. Il est fondé sur l’analyse économique, il est fondé sur l’expérience, sur les faits, et ne doit pas être jugé sur le superficiel, l’apparence, les mythes et l’émotion. Alors, il faut pour avoir une véritable politique, tout d’abord comprendre, assimiler et expliquer. Rien ne pourra se faire sans acceptation sociale, et à cet égard il est important en particulier de travailler avec le Parlement européen. Ensuite, lorsque l’on a accomplit cette étape, il faut assumer sa politique, la mettre en œuvre. Comprendre, expliquer, mette en œuvre et assumer. Enfin, une politique doit avoir un sens propre, elle n’est pas un sous-politique du reste. Elle doit intervenir à niveau égal avec les autres politiques et s’harmoniser avec elle. Dernier point, il faut que l’Union européenne soit présente sur la scène internationale, assumer sa politique, être présente dans toutes les instances – l’OMC et l’OMPI notamment – et parler d’une voix forte. Aujourd’hui, elle est trop absente. En conclusion, il faut un système pour les citoyens de l’Europe qui passe par les entreprises de l’Europe et qui est au service de l’Union européenne. Je vous remercie.

Thierry Sueur presentation in English

Thierry Sueur presentation in French (1)

Thierry Sueur presentation in French (2)

08-DavidFieldsend-en,01:58:55-02:05:40

Thank you. Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is David Fieldsend and I represent Care for Europe – Christian Action Research & Education. We are registered in Belgium as an AISBL and supported by a lot of churches and individuals. We support the ambition of the European Union to become the most advanced knowledge-based economy in the world. And we recognize that in the actual context of global competition, this mission only can be made by research and innovation leading to new products and processes for the benefit of the whole society, depending on legally-enforceable financial contributions to be retailed on the market. The European Constitution made clear what our values are; decisions that have to be taken must be taken within this framework and particularly with the fundamental rights defined in the European Convention on Human Rights as it was made clear by European Commission in the consultation documents. Non-political issues are raised by the process of patenting inventions. The problem is the speediness to which these inventions are carried on to the market. For the patent office, these issues are set up by principles. I should precise that my presentation will be soon available on our website. I have four points in this presentation. Patents should only be available for genuine invention and not for discovered things that already exist in nature. No patents on life! The very aim of a patent system must be to protect the public interest, stimulate innovation and secure scientific progress. The grant of a patent where there is no novelty should not be possible. Innovation is rewarded by patent that should be carefully granted only to the specific application. This way it serves the scientific progress.

the speaker goes too fast, his words are impossible to catch

David Fieldsend presentation (1)

David Fieldsend presentation (2)

09-JonathanZuck-en,02:05:40-02:10:56

Thank you Madam Chairman. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. As you said, I am representing the Association for Competitive Technologies that is over three thousands SMEs in the ICT sector, about a thousand are currently European SMEs. Because of the short time, I just want to make a few points here early in the day and I will try to intervene in the rest of the day. So that would be my challenge. The first point concerns business innovation. Not all the SMEs are in the business innovation and this might be a mistake to group all SMEs together and talk of one type of company while their business model is quite a bit different. But anyway, a lot of SMEs are all taking real risk to bring new ideas, new products and inventions to the market place. We have to remember that the issue set has beginning in the summer. The purpose of this patent policy is to provide an environment for innovation and to put an end to national frictions that often occur. SMEs innovators are attentive to the notion of patentability and they believe that it make easier access to capital that it facilitates partnerships with market companies that might otherwise be problematic. SMEs that are in the innovation business are very fan of the idea of an European patent. What they want primarily from a patent system again as it was I think well summarized by the European Commission is accessibility and predictability, and that accessibility and predictability apply not only for those which apply for patents but also for those which seek information. In other words, we want a system that is easier to be navigated by small businesses. So, this should include alternative means to get information on patents and also includes thing making a system more accessible for the granting of patents as well. Accessibility and predictability. So we talk about some the options that are in the table, I have some interesting discussions with the SMEs. When I ask them how do they feel about the EPLA and the London Protocol, they wondered whether or not it was referencing to a spy movie, not anything to do with their business So the first issue is education. And we spend a lot of time talking about some specific measures, when in reality what they most is a vast and simplified system. Most of the proposals that have been on the table concerning the Community patent concern the choice of a single language. When we talk about measures, those which decrease the cost are welcome because favouring therefore accessibility of the system. And so there are some hopes that the need to translate in a single language in the future or the possibility of simplifying litigation cost will decrease costs. And so they are as I suppose warmly receptive to this proposal, if it is not totally. Also as it was well-summarized there are a lot of interesting alternative solutions to litigation. Very often you’re here that the best possible litigation reform is avoiding litigation. So again we support the notion of seeking out alternatives about litigation including meditation means. Mediation as a mean is very effective in the US for instance. They were also very interested potentially in a second look at the patent before litigation. Right now the EPO gives you eight months to contest the patent but you are not paying any attention to the patent. The time you pay attention is when you receive a letter in your mail, and that might be the best time for a SME to approach the patent authority to re-examine the patent and to bring out a possible prior art. I’d like to end with a story about a small business, a small European software business that invented some new software, techniques to sell on a specific market. So, they invented a competitive product and they got a patent for it Huge retails target in the US have become their costumers. But they were not happy that their suppliers were three thousands miles away. That is the only choice they have because their company has a technology that is the more competitive that the one they have So, as we re-examine this issue, I’d like to do one thing a find a possible solution will be more stories like this or fewer. Thank you.

JonathanZuck speech

10-MikeBarlow-en,02:10:56-02:15:10

Madam Chairman, good morning! My name is Mike Barlow and I am chairman of the CEFIC Task Force. The European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) is an organization representing chemical federations and companies in Europe. The chemical industry employs over two million people in Europe, selling products for more than five hundred billion euros. In order to maintain his competitive position, ten billion euros have to be invested into innovation. With such important investments in R&D, CEFIC has clear interest in the future of the patent system in Europe. As far as the characteristic of the system concerns us, we are very sensitive to the high quality of patents granted for genuine inventions, accessible to all. An efficient patent system is necessary because we have to remind that patents are strong business tools which have to be treated seriously by both the patent offices and courts. We are also to support the European Patent Convention with at its centre the European Patent Office, an already existing system that should not be replicated today. And particularly, the European Patent Office is a world class institution which needs to be fully supported by the European Commission and the member states. The EPO’s leadership must be given to maintain its autonomy in order to deliver high quality patents. The system is already close to any global change. That is not to say we are against the change, that is to say any change must be made through this threshold and on the basis of clear evidence that any change would not affect the whole entity. On the present patent system, a world class chemical system needs to have a sustainable future. But we have to check for the long-term and it is also the need of all stakeholders. Any further development of the system must be based on evolution not revolution. In this context, we strongly support the London agreement and the EPLA. We also support the idea of a community, even if the system and its current form must be detailed. However, we wish to remind the European Commission those high quality patents are part of the debate and setting interests in which all find their interests, in particular regarding confidential business information and the protection of data In the recent years, the legislation concerning the chemical industry in Europe has led to fragment the approach issues and it has been increasingly difficult for the chemical federations to maintain the business secrets. We urge the European Commission to look forward the issue, and looking to the concerns of the future European system, a clear patent policy has to be built. Finally we would like to highlight the urgency for a clear IP policy in Europe which fully supports European innovative industry. Comparing to the rest of the world, for example Japan or the USA, the EU still lacks of coherent and clearly approach articulated in this area. This is the key point the European Commission should look forward, the key to build a better future in Europe Thank you Madam Chairman.

11-AlicjaAdamczak-en,02:15:10-02:20:42

Thank you Madam Chairman. The Polish Patent Office recognizes the existing European patent system as not responding to the needs and interests of all its users and considers it under the European Patent Convention as too complicated and too expansive, and consequently not as competitive as US and Japanese companies. The EPC system is considered by the Polish industry as more favourable for big companies than for small inventors and enterprises, as costs are widely recognized to be too much high. For these reasons, when developing a new patent system in Europe, the common political approach of May 2003 is desirable to be considered, particularly to the respect of the role of the national patent offices. Our position is that this role should not be reduced for patent applications and driving services in patent information. The future patent system in Europe should be competent and resilient for national patent offices. This requires that the interests of all stakeholders concerned are represented and that information is equally provided for them to participate in the new system Success of the future system will repose on the quality of patents and elimination of duplication of useless services. The creation of an efficient European patent network should relay on the work of national patent offices which would be mutually recognised. Only under these conditions, the goal of the revised Lisbon agenda would have a chance to achieve and we would have a transparent European patent system with a rapid process for obtaining patents, predictable and not as expansive as it is the case today, and that would enhance our competitiveness However, in the process of negotiating a new patent system, the issues of legal security and certainty and economic transaction must be taken into consideration. The same concern which continues to remain an open and difficult question, particularly in the national regulation of many EU member states, should be to maintain state authority as making accessible all the information for the public at the deadline. A compromise acceptable for all the players of the system, from the point of view of the equal treatment of the languages and effectiveness of the patent system must be found. Regarding the question of the supplement of litigation for infringement and the quality of European patent, the establishment of a single centralised jurisdiction on the EPC member state seems to be a good solution. However, we have to underline, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises and individuals, that the permanent use of the EPO languages for the proceedings and a distinct location of the court would cause problems for them It follows from these remarks that quite a number of stakeholders would prefer to have local court where the proceedings would be in their languages. The idea of European Patent system scheme should in our view be based on specialised national courts or a limited number of courts of appeal. One of the most important features of such scheme should be relatively low cost and the possibility of reducing these costs under certain circumstances. National patent law doesn’t require any immediate action. It needs to be harmonized concerning quality patent system and standardization for search and examination in national patent offices in order to avoid useless duplication. This could happen with the establishment of a system of mutual recognition of national patents with Europe in the future. The very idea of mutual recognition is very interesting and worth for a lot of participants, it seems to be a solution which would make expectation of most of the users. Nevertheless, we have to keep in mind that establishing and implementing such a system would take a considerable amount of time. One of the issues in this process is developing a solution for all of the users. Thanks for inviting us to participate to his debate in order to create a new desirable European patent system. Thank you.

Alicja Adamczak speech

12-GillesCapart-en,02:20:42-02:26:11

Thank you Madam Chairman. Ladies and Gentlemen, I represent ProTon Europe which is a European association grouping two hundred and seventy transfer offices, European Universities, research institutes and more than two thousand professionals. In addition, ProTon is a European partner of most existing national associations. It is generally recognised that European universities are producing quality knowledge but that conversion of such knowledge into economic benefits is not effective compared to the US. The use of patent application is the most important instrument of such conversion. Indeed, it is the only way of reassembling the disseminated publications of discoveries with the development of inventions based on such discoveries. Patents can be directly used to gain licence or indirectly to foster collaboratively research within industry. Many founds are available through venture capital or capital gains coming from patents. The ethic of our members it to file patents only when doing so in case directly hold that the inventions will develop benefits for the public in keeping with the original intent of the patent legislation. Among the thirty five most successful patents of that decade granted by the EPO for the inventor of the Year, which was awarded last may, about fifty percent were based on University inventions and an additional twenty five percent were indirectly obtained by bargain with universities. This shows that patents delivered by the University are caution for the development of the knowledge economy The problem is that universities do not file their patent. All surveys on the filing produced so far that the propensity of the European Universities to file patents is about five times lower than for US Universities. This is a major market failure. Some of the differences can be attributed to cultural divergence, but most of the differences we believe relays on the fact that the European patent system is not as well adapted our Universities compared to the US’ one. As you see this is a long list. Only the item shown in italics might be improved to some extent by the proposed Community patent. There are other items on the list that did exist and still exist in certain member states and that could easily be implemented at the European stage. We think that the proposed Community patent which we have supported all the time after all the compromises with unanimous support of the member state will not improve significantly the situation for universities make actually things worse. The addition of a third layer on the top of the national patents will in fact add complications to the costs while decreasing legal certainty during the transition period It will take much more than ten year before the elective option of Community patent will add enough significant advantages actually displaced by the other system. By that time, the economy knowledge cycle will be over with the consequences suggested on the slides. On the other hand, we think that there is much more potential for building the existing EPC system by voluntary measures such as the adoption of EPLA and the London Protocol. The excessive cost of patent in Europe comes to a large extend from the national patent systems with no significant benefices. These valuable resources could be use more effectively to support the innovation process. The other advantage of this approach is that it does not require the unanimity of the member states and should be easier to implement. If the member states are really serious on the Community patent system, they should not object this. It requires the capacities to make that a good idea twenty years ago will no longer be a good idea today.

Gilles Capart presentation

Gilles Capart presentation

13-JacquelineMinor-en,02:26:11-02:27:16

Thank you very much, you were clearly support by the audience on that very point of view. I am supposed to summarize at the end of each panel and I will try to lose as little time as possible to do so. The messages that I take away and that is not necessary the final messages because we will have another at another presentations today, again. First of all, that patent policy need to be part of the European policy and have a role to the development of IPR in Europe, and that it has to take into account values which are not purely commercial, but ethical values as well… And that the right legal framework must be focus on accessibility and predictability but at the same time maintain quality patent And that the legal framework per se is not enough, there have to be frank measures to improve it, such as education or mediation especially for small and medium sized enterprises, and other means of assisting universities to bring inventions to the market. And that was the first panel. We now move on to the second panel which is in fact the last volley of the consultation document, dealing with harmonization and recognition. And the first speaker is Mme Elisabethlisabeth Thouret-Lemaître who comes from France and represents Sanofi-Aventis.

14-ElisabethThouretLemaître-fr,02:26:16-02:31:23

Merci madame la Présidente. Je représente effectivement Sanofi-Aventis, groupe pharmaceutique français et le LEEM, LEs Entreprises du Médicament en France. Mon propos est bien évidement relatif au brevet en Europe puisque tel est l’objet du questionnaire. Harmonisation et reconnaissance mutuelle, tel est le thème de cette partie. Dans le questionnaire de la Commission, le terme utilisé est rapprochement « approximation » et non harmonisation. Même s’il apparaît d’après les remarques préliminaires élaborées par la Commission que « there’s little support for harmonization », il faut noter que par la suite pratiquement toutes les réponses tendent à montrer que l’harmonisation dans le domaine des brevets en général est indispensable et n’est pas encore établi en Europe En conséquence, je propose et je soutiens que l’harmonisation est un sujet à traiter dans les quatre parties que j’ai proposées. Premièrement, l’harmonisation des législations nationales Secondairement, l’harmonisation de l’interprétation des textes Troisièmement, l’harmonisation des méthodes de travail Quatrièmement, l’harmonisation des cas de jurisprudence Ces différents points devraient nous amener à un office des brevets pour le brevet européen ou communautaire, si l’on arrive à se mettre d’accord Et une institution judiciaire pour les décisions relatives aux brevets délivrés par l’OEB. Premièrement, parmi les quatre points que je vais traiter, je reviens sur cette harmonisation. Il est vrai que les dispositions législatives relatives à l’acquisition des droits sont harmonisées. Les divergences proviennent cependant d’interprétations différentes des dispositions prises par les juridictions nationales. Harmonisation des méthodes de travail indispensables entre offices nationaux, indispensables je dirai aussi à l’intérieur de l’Office européen des brevets, pour une qualité meilleure des brevets délivrés. Et ceci nécessite formation des examinateurs, information des examinateurs sur le rôle du brevet dans une entreprise. Secondairement, l'harmonisation de l’interprétation des textes, ce point est mentionné dans toutes les réponses, il est inutile de s’y étendre. Troisièmement, quant aux décisions judiciaires, c’est une telle évidence pour tous que cette harmonisation est indispensable, que l’on pourrait imaginer de ne pas le mentionner à nouveau ; dans les conclusions présentées par la Commission, c’est très claire en tout cas. La reconnaissance mutuelle me semble inefficace, coûteuse et dangereuse. Inefficace, car elle conduirait à une redondance de l’examen avec l’Office européen des brevets vraisemblablement. De ce fait, ce serait coûteux et dangereux, car la qualité des brevets délivrés ne serait pas identique. Or, il faut insister sur la qualité des brevets délivrés. Quatrièmement, en conséquence et en conclusion, il est indispensable d’avoir un office européen des brevets délivrant des brevets de qualité et une institution judiciaire indépendante créant elle aussi un corpus de décisions de qualité, basé sur l’expérience acquise, reposant sur l’expérience de magistrats qui ont dans ce domaine une grande connaissance du droit de la propriété intellectuelle et de l’entreprise et de l’économie. Je vous remercie.

Elisabeth Thouret-Lemaître

15-WernerFrohling-en,02:31:23-02:34:58

Madame Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to express the views of Volvo regarding harmonization and mutual recognition. Harmonization, as already mentioned, is well-regarded as seen as being necessary because we have already the harmonization due to the European patent convention and due to the fact that the EPC will be further harmonized by the WTO. Harmonization is needed both for enforcement and litigation procedures. And we think we should be very practical, we should take the steps which are manageable in the near future in order also to fulfil the Lisbon agenda namely to be as competent as possible in the next couple of years. And for this, we should strive for having the London agreement ratified as well as to implement the EPLA and have practical measures to improve the existing patent system. When it comes to mutual recognition, we also this not the way to go because it would jeopardize the unitary character of harmonization of the European patent system. We think that it is the wrong and that we should avoid dividing our efforts working on the further development of the European patent convention one side and recognition of national patents and strive for harmonizing these differences in order to improve the European patent convention as the measures of today for a system that is already working very well for industry. The mutual recognition as such is not the way to go and the idea of having the European patent as a qualified certifying body is not a good idea either, because it would double the work and lead to time delays in this area and anyway it will not improve the situation either. We should strive for supporting all measures which would improve the European patent system as it is today and in parallel improve the work on the Community patent system which should be affordable for everybody, for SMEs as well as for large companies. So, in conclusion, I would like to summarize. There is no need for harmonization for substantive patent law for this will double automatically by working on the EPC. And we should not work on mutual recognition of national patents; we should strive for a very good working European patent system and in parallel the future of the Community patent for Europe Thank you very much.

16-BertramHuber-en,02:34:58-02:40:00

Madame la Présidente, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am Bertram Huber in charge of the intellectual propriety at Bosh, one of the biggest applicant of patents in Europe. In 2005, Bosh has spent more than three billion euros in R&D and has filed more than 2.800 priority patent applications. Patent harmonization is a good thing. With a harmonized patent system, it is simpler and cheaper to obtain patents. There have been efforts made on this way in the last two decades by the trilateral patent offices in the world: EPO, USPTO and JPO along with the industry. There are parallel efforts activities of experts, of industry associations in the main geographical areas in order to foster such efforts. Globally, the field of intellectual propriety has been among the earliest field of harmonizing the legal rules and the regulation in the different countries and so far IP has play the paralleled role to bring the rules close together. Well, if you ask the question whether there is a need for harmonization of the patent law in the various countries of the European Union. From the point of view of the existing national treaties and conventions in the IP field already today, there is a suggestion for harmonization. National patent law in the European countries is harmonized as far as the substantive law is concerned. The problem lies in the quite different level of experience given in the patent offices and courts. Many offices have only a very small number of patent applications and patents granted per year, and nobody can expect experience from these quality merged practices and the minimum number of cases in patent courts. The important reasons for the differences between the national offices lay in the granting process, the raw and serious examination on the one hand, patent offices that deliver all applications to become patents on the other hand. Another reason is the complexity and the diversity of the role of technique. There are many patent offices that naturally have more and more difficulties to overlook and evaluate the state of the art. It is obvious that as a result thereof the patents granted by the patent offices in the EU cannot be considered to be all of the same quality and therefore mutual recognition is not feasible. The European patent office itself even in view of the complex structure of the bundle of patents is definitely a success story, a real success story. Having turned into one of the best patent offices worldwide, we want to do everything to hip this and avoid everything to endanger such achievement. Well, what to do now, especially the EU goals of the Lisbon agenda, is to concentrate on bringing the London agreement and the EPLA ratified as soon as possible, to take further experience in these unified and harmonized tools and start recognizing the grow of Europe and certain institutions on national level, we will have to redirect the functions. Also the information about the IP system in Europe must be dramatically improved. The success of the Lisbon agenda is fundamentally based on the basic understanding and acceptance of the IP by the general public. Let me summarize. First, we have big differences in the entity that deliver patents and consequently of level of quality in the different patent offices. The previous conditions for mutual recognition of patent in Europe are far not evident. Second, the Lisbon agenda urges us to move further immediately. London agreement and EPLA are valuable tools for the immediate future. Third, we will see the day when the majority of the EU member states will realize that the Community patent regime with a single language regime will be the best way to improve the European competitiveness but I am unable to tell you when it will be the case. Fourth, until then we have to concentrate on increasing awareness about the importance of IP in Europe for improving the competitiveness in Europe. Thank you.

Bertram Huber speech

17-PhilWadsworth-en,02:40:00-02:45:00

Thank you Madam Chairman, actually my name is Phil Wadsworth and I am the vice president of Qualcomm which is based in California and on behalf of our Qualcomm, I would like to extend my thanks for having invited us to this public debate as innovators. Qualcomm is the leader in developing, delivering, enabling innovative wireless services and products and we strongly believe that adequate protection and rewards for IPR is based upon free-market values and principles providing incentives to innovation which is the basis of ICT economy as well as the goal of the Lisbon agenda. Qualcomm presently files a lot of EPO patent applications annually when it comes to validate these applications in many countries. And we believe we are an experienced user of the EPO system We believe that a system which provides a single patent granted in a single language – preferably in English – granted by a centralised agency in all EU member states would provide many many benefits. We believe that a centralised patent court of first instance and appeal operating on the same case law would provide predictability and reduce costs for company that do business thereby creating expenditures for R&D. With this background, we believe that further harmonization of the substantive patent law and mutual recognition by national patents offices in the EU member states are less desirable. I just like to make a few more detailed observations. First. We welcome the efforts of the EPO in the examining and granting procedures which provide consistency and certainty to the examination process We do know that the protection of IPR in all member engender main payments in each member states which are excessive and retain exhibit participation in the patent system. Therefore, we believe that any changes in the EPO practices should only improve the existing strength of the EPO. Secondly, there is a need for more consistency and certainty for litigation process. When it comes for a patent system to provide certainty in the whole litigation process, we believe that it will be the best accomplished by the creation of a specialised centralised patent court system. Furthermore, there is a period of time into which such a patent system would reduce the cost of litigation process. Also, we feel with other speakers, that there is a need to focus on education on litigation process and on any regards we welcome any initiative that further educates and raise awareness on adequate protection of IPR can be realised thus providing additional R&D expenditures Economic growth. So in conclusion, we believe that economic and fair patent system that provides adequate protection to IPR and certainty to the business community. It would be more preferable to spend additional time in the harmonization of the substantive patent law than in mutual recognition discussions. The Commission will best serve the innovators by focusing its efforts on working on a single patent system built on the EPO bases and on working toward the creation of centralised court system which is of course much needed by countries and of course protection by specialised judges taking into consideration in the frame of the EPLA We recognize that such efforts can proceed from the European Commission taking into consideration the fact that such changes are much needed. And that concludes my comments, thank you very much.

18-AlexandruCristian-en,02:45:00-02:50:06

Thank you Madam Chairman and distinguished auditorium. I have splited my presentation in four parts. I begin with the premises of harmonization, the early steps that can be made and finally some kind of conclusions. Concerning the premises of harmonization, I would like first to recognize the remarkable level of harmonization which already exists in Europe under European patent convention. Nevertheless, the European approach on SPLT should also be implemented in short period of time in the scope of global harmonization. My consideration is that there are still different approaches regarding some different topics like for instance protection of software-related inventions, problems of technical and moral duplication of patent ability, level of inventive steps in its direct connexion with the so-called trivial patents. Some kind of premises regarding mutual recognition. In my opinion, the concept of mutual recognition is some kind of questionable if we are speaking about the recognition of patents. If we are speaking on the recognition of the work, it is better, and if we are speaking about the utilisation of the role, it is even better in our opinion, at least, as an intermediate step for discussion. My consideration is there are two main and quite different approaches of the Europe. The first one is the utilization of work between trilateral offices and the other one is the utilisation of work between the EPO and national patent offices like mine. Patents granted on uniformed legal basis should be equally enforceable in a unitary manner. Nevertheless, we have to face important challenges in building up a patent system based on mutual processes concerning the quality of intermediate and final products done by the other. And my consideration is that we can see this process like for instance developed within the multinational companies in a multinational environment. Some basis on mutual recognition. The level of harmonization within Europe in the world in SPLT which should be concluded in the near future achieving in Europe some political standards in discussion within the European patent negotiation and based mostly on this quality standards setting up the European patent network as decided recently by the administrative council of the EPO. I insist on the fact that the utilisation of the work is considered that by that decision as a pillar of the European strategy in the field of patent. Some steps to be made in my opinion. Setting up the flexible European position and including the negotiations of the SPLT within the WIPO with these substantives qualifications regarding the quality of patents in Europe concerning the question of the European patent by two questions. The harmonized position regarding the software patentability of software-related inventions Secondly, the harmonization of the European policy in the field of protection as a basis to a design a non-trivial inventive step requested by patents. The implementation of the Community patent is urgent as we find in the common position of the Council 2003 and the implementation of EPLA and its positive aspects on the judiciary system of Community patent. The implementation of the strategic pillar up to other geographical areas aiming at mutual recognition is also welcomed. In conclusion, what we are speaking now is a difficult thing but possible in this context. We need some rapid and further political decision in the patent policy in Europe to manage the future challenges. And last but not least, and I insist on that, maybe it should be taken into account a better coordination between the European Commission Internal Market and the European patent office. Thank you for your attention, thank you very much.

Alexandru Cristian presentation

19-ThomasReimann-en,02:50:06-02:54:42

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I speak on the behalf of German association for the protection of intellectual propriety, covering interests on IP from judges to industries to attorneys to scientists In the member states and in the European Patent Organization, there has been since decades, a well-functioning patent system based on the fact that only such patents will be granted on inventions that really go beyond the prior art as assured by the quality of examination of the EPO with opposition proceedings before it and national invalidity beyond it. The quality of the work of the EPO must be maintained, possibly improved by no means however jeopardized by decentralisation and delegation of vital task through great number national patent offices. The substantive patent law in Europe is already harmonized to great extent by the articles of the EPC and the protocol and claim construction. And so far as national court will apply such rules, still for clearly diverging reasons, there is however a tendency to be observed in the national courts of the member state to look to the corresponding case law of the other national court and to specifically deal with them and their decisions. This is at least the case in Great-Britain and Germany. This is also an effort to achieve a further harmonization in the corresponding attempt of attorneys presenting the cases to the courts. All this is reflected in the declaration of a great number of experienced judges in a Conference in Venice in October 2005, telling that they are prepared to examine these still existing differences and to work out guidelines for a still more uniformed application of the law. We therefore do not see necessity for harmonization directive. After this submission of the guideline of these European judges, mentioning it can be expected that on the basis thereof national courts and EPO will follow such suggestions which are born by the very high authority of the special knowledge and extensive experience of these judges. Further corresponding affects will be achieved by the European Patent Litigation Agreement. We see a unitary European Patent litigation system still as a goal for the long run. However, the common political proposal, there is not a valuable instrument for functioning this system in the European patent system since the purpose of this centralised European patent litigation system will not lead to practical and workable regime with results. And the language regime, I am not only asking for translations of some or all the claims, all the abstracts without binding force as too costly, overly expensive and creating new difficulties and not necessary. Hence, we prefer the EPLA proposals which are well balanced and promise to be workable in practice. Further, EPLA offers the advantages that it can be implemented into a great number of European patents already in existence. The unanimous acceptance of EPLA proposals by the leading European patent judges on the conference already mentioned speaks clearly for this system and its usefulness for Europe. The European Commission should begin – according the authorization given by the Council – to participate in the preparation of the EPLA as if the Community were already a member of the EPC. Thank you.

Thomas Reimann presentation

20-JacquelineMinor-en,02:54:42-02:57:30

Thank you. Again I am going to give a short summarize of this very interesting contributions of this panel, these very productive and rich interventions. A majority seems to be opposed to mutual recognition of patents while other expressed for earlier recognition of patent in the step of examination. Concerning harmonization, views expressed were that are factors to a large degree of harmonization relating the grant of the patent. But concerns were about the absence of a harmonized judicial system and the problem of divergence concerning case law and jurisprudence. We were also reminded that harmonization is not exclusively an internal market question that is also the question of harmonization at a global level, for instance with the WIPO process which requires an agreement within the Community, or the continuous dialog between the US patent office and the Japanese patent office. An interesting remark that emerged in the panel is the problem of soft law approximation, in other words not using the regulatory framework but looking at practice, the development of guidelines perhaps by the EPO and perhaps by another body, perhaps national standards would work within national offices together in a much more systematic and practical way to exchange to ensure mutual understanding common agreement on patenting standards And that was the second panel. We now move on to the panel number three which focuses on the Community patent, and we have…

20-MariaCimaglia-en,02:57:30-03:02:37

Thanks. I am the legal adviser of UEAPME, the employer's organisation representing crafts, trades and SMEs from the EU and accession countries at European level. UEAPME has 78 member organisations, which represent crafts and SMEs across Europe, covering over 11 million enterprises with 50 million employees. UEAPME is a European Social Partner. We participated to the consultation of the European Commission on patent system and reading the “preliminary findings” we notice that our position has been disqualified even if not directly mentioned and that SMEs positions consulted through the SME panel were not in line with our opinion as we could expect. Concerning the protection of the intellectual propriety, both national and European patent systems do not sue to SMEs. National patent is obviously too limited. The European patent system, in the other hand, even if it allowed protection in various countries, it splits into national patents after having been granted. Therefore the same invention can be subject to 31 legislations. This implies high costs and a very complicated system. The creation of a Community patent system could solve this problem under some conditions. First of all, SMEs should be better informed on patent. National patent offices should play an active role into supporting SMEs in particular in the search for information on patent applications and the promotion of patents. Secondly, it is necessary to reduce the cost of patent and litigation. Besides these high costs, there are other expansive burdens for SMEs to use the patent. First of all, the introduction of a request for a patent is far too costly for the SMEs. Due to their limited structure, SMEs cannot hire patent experts to follow the patent issue. Therefore, this implies supplementary costs that they cannot always afford. Then the obligation of translation increases the cost. That’s why in our opinion, the number of languages should be reduced to a minimum. One language should be chosen among the official languages of the procedure, for instance English, as it is already the universal language in the field of patents. If this proposal is not accepted at a political level, an alternative solution could be to allow granting and publishing in any of the European languages and translating only the claims in one of the working languages of Europe in the patent offices, preferably in English. Finally, litigations are very costly. And the risk of litigation is very high. Again the SMEs do not have the financial and technical means to face theses issues. Even when the trial is in favour of the SME in question its financial situation is already compromised. It is necessary to solve the problem of SMEs and give the opportunity to make the optimum use of the patent system. The Community patent could be very useful to solve this problem and reduce the costs mentioned. As far as litigation is concerned, the centralised court system as foreseen in the EPLA might reduce access to justice to SMEs that are not able to enter a litigation procedure at a Community level. The EPLA at article 7 mentioned the possibility of regional division of the court of first instance. That could be seen as a step in the right direction. On the other hand, the creation of centralised patent court would allow a unique interpretation of the harmonized substantial patent law. The system would reduce cost of litigation and would reduce risk of getting different decisions from the various courts. It would increase legal certainty for all, patent-holder that should go to highly specialised patent courts with qualified and experienced judges. For those reasons, those remarks on EPLA should be included for litigation questions. Access to justice should be facilitated and guaranteed for SMEs. Perhaps optional litigation insurance should be created Instruments should be tailored for SMEs, for instance providing inner experts within national patent office. Costs should be cut off into limiting translations or choosing a unique language. An information campaign should be launched to inform all stakeholders and make them aware of the economic advantages which can arise from a European patent system. Thank you.

Community patent should be back at the top of EU agenda

21-MichelHerouf-fr,03:02:37-03:07:08

Bonjour. Je m’appelle Michel Herouf, je suis en charge du management de la propriété intellectuelle de ce groupe, EADS, dont je vais faire une très courte présentation, en commençant tout d’abord par vous présentez ce qu’est notre compagnie, ce que nous brevetons et quels sont nos espoirs. Notre compagnie est le leader du marché dans le domaine de l’aéronautique, en particulier sur les avions commerciaux. Nous sommes numéro 1 avec notre filiale Airbus, que nous possédons à 80%. Nous sommes numéro dans les hélicoptères, avec Eurocopter, une filiale qui est installée en France et en Allemagne. Nous sommes leader dans les systèmes de transport type Ariane, avec une filiale EADS Space Transportation qui a une partie en France et une partie en Allemagne. Nous sommes numéro 2 dans les missiles, avec une filiale qui s’appelle NPD dont nous possédons 37,5%. Nous sommes numéro 3 dans les satellites avec Astrion, qui est installé en Angleterre, en France, en Allemagne. Nous sommes numéro 3 dans les avions de transport militaire avec une filiale localisée en Espagne Et nous sommes numéro 4 dans les systèmes militaires où nous sommes installés en Allemagne et en Espagne. Nous consacrons une grande partie de notre chiffre d’affaire en recherche et développement. Nous dépensons 16% de notre chiffre d’affaire dans le domaine de la recherche et du développement, ce qui nous fait accumuler un grand volume de savoir-faire et de connaissance. Une autre caractéristique est que nos employés sont européens. Nous avons 30% de notre effectif en France, 36% en Allemagne, 16% en Espagne, 12% au Royaume-Uni et de manière marginale dans les autres pays du monde. Nous faisons à peu près 600 dépôts par année et ce chiffre va en augmentant car nous pensons que nous devons breveter pour nous protéger. La nationalité de nos inventeurs est Européenne, d’abord allemande, puis française, puis anglaise, puis espagnole. Notre portefeuille de brevets se situe à peu près à 5000 inventions brevetées. Comment nous brevetons ? Nous faisons un premier dépôt selon la procédure nationale, principalement en Allemagne, en France et en Angleterre. Et nous faisons des extensions sur l’Europe en utilisant le système de l’OEB, et l’on désigne plusieurs pays mais pas tout les pays systématiquement à cause des problèmes de coûts. Cette manière de procéder nous satisfait pleinement, nous sommes assez fiers de cette procédure, exceptée pour les coûts élevés. Par contre nous estimons que la qualité doit être maintenue au niveau actuel et que le système de jurisprudence doit être amélioré. Nous constatons donc que notre système d’innovation est global en Europe et que l’exploitation en est devenue mondiale. Notre rêve est que le brevet communautaire soit mis en place à égalité par rapport à notre concurrent qui est Boeing qui a un système bien meilleure que le notre. Que le brevet communautaire soit donc mis en place, dans des conditions économiques similaires. Par contre, nous sommes satisfaits du système à court terme qui est l’OEB. Merci.

23-LotharSteiling-en,03:07:08-03:12:32

Madam Chairman, first of all I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to present the views of the German industries federation, the BDI. The BDI is the umbrella organization representing more than one hundred thousands small and large enterprises for a total of eight million employees. The German industries federation has already filed twenty-four thousands European patent applications since 2004. According to the Lisbon agenda of 2000, common goal to be the most competitive knowledge-based economy in 2010. We have still a long from this achievement. A great deal of time has been wasted these recent years due to differences of opinion between member states which have generated a political debate and the current EPLA. German industries federation supports the Community patent which would simplify the application of patent law within Europe and would compete with the Japanese and US systems. Great efforts have been made in the recent years in particular, and yet a consensus has been reached with the common political approach of 2003 which not conduct to a satisfactory solution and therefore should be abandoned. The two main problems remain those of cost and litigation. Since the litigation system will be dealt later under item 4 of the today’s agenda, I would like to concentrate my presentation on the cost aspects. The requirement for cost reduction should be primarily focused on reducing the cost translation by no means allowing the decrease and the quality of granted patents. The language issues continue to remain the main problem. Europe will continue to lack competitiveness as long as it does not find the proper solution to this problem. Community patent require translation into twenty-one official languages; it is simply not feasible. At this stage the only solution will be the requirement for translation into the three official languages of the EPO. Translations into twenty-on languages will not only cause undue expenses but also considerable legal uncertainty, since the services of the patent lawyer will be necessary for the translation. It is not highly surprising that several national attorneys have been pleading in favour of a multiple language regime, since that would provide them lucrative incomes, especially in the case of smaller member states with a short patent history and a limited number of patent translators. It is questionable to hold such a translation requirement that would work in practice instead of decreasing legal uncertainty. It is therefore absolutely essential for only the language into which the patent is granted to be decisive in the event of legal dispute. Otherwise, preliminary injunctions will be ineffective or impossible since defence could argue that the claims have been corrupting translated into their language. Moreover, surveys have shown that industries hardly make fuses of inspecting translations. So, what is the point of such a multiple languages regime? Such a regime would necessarily increase the legal uncertainty. Patent attorneys would have to waste valuable time into inspecting multiple language versions of relevant patents. The language problem would necessarily affect competitiveness of large companies and make the comprehensive effective protection of intellectual propriety almost impossible for small and medium-sized enterprises. They simply will not be able to cope with such a translation requirement. The time will be right for the Community patent to be truly affordable and legally secure.

Lothar Steiling speech

24-HelmutSchubert-en,03:12:32-03:18:05

Thank you very much for this introduction. I am head of the IP department of Fraunhofer Institute, one of the largest institutions for applied science in Europe. Fraunhofer Institute maintains over eighty research units with a staff of thirty thousands, the most of them engineers, scientists working with an annual budget of 1.2 billion euros. Our researchers create two inventions everyday and we filed about five hundred priority applications per year, among them about two hundred and fifty with the European patent office. The topic of this section is the Community patent and in my opinion Doctor Steiling already gave an excellent description of the problems of the Community patent. I want to underline each of these words which I do not to repeat them. Instead, I would like to summarize what the Fraunhofer Institute expects from the future of the patent system in six points First, having technological inventions in mind, we need protection for all technical inventions regardless of the technical field. This holds traditional field of technologies such as productions or materials as well as for new fields such as biotechnologies or computer-implemented inventions. The discussion about excluding certain technical fields from patentability should not be open. How can we explain to researchers from an institute for scientific computing or an institute for experimental software that the results of their work could not be patented in the future. Second point. The patent system has to focus on protection of technical inventions. Other patent applications such as high tech, environment, health care must not be discussed within the patent system but have to be regulated by special law. This special law has to be regarded with the patent system. Thirdly. We need patents granted within a reasonable period of time with high and consistent quality in our countries. Therefore we need a uniform and comprehensive search of the state of the art and a high level uniformed examination procedure. In my opinion, this only can be guaranteed within one central organization. Fourthly. The cost of patenting must be economically reduced. That means the price must not be burdened by unnecessary expenditures. The language of scientists if English. English becomes the business language. Why do we need translation for all patents in all countries? The languages of the European Patent Convention or only English should become the language of the future European patent system. Fifth point. Patents must provide legal certainty. The definition of the scope of the patent, the language of the examination proceedings should be applicable. Different legal versions in different countries are not acceptable. Last point. The enforcement of patent has to be uniformed and efficient and it should take into account the already existing experience. The common political approach of 2003 on the Community patent is trying to reach this point. But we see a system that already works: the EPC. Therefore it is not necessary to reinvent basics of the patent system. Some modifications have to be taken due to the translation requirement. The European patent is still to expansive. This makes the system not uniform and expansive. Concerning the London protocol the European Patent Litigation Agreement which will be subjects in the latter sections, we see steps into the right direction. The London Protocol would dramatically reduce the cost and the EPLA would lead to an efficient enforcement system based on a well already existing well proven system Thank you.

Helmut Schubert presentation

25-MichelleChilds-en,03:18:05-03:22:43

I work for Consumer Projet Technology, aNGO dealing with intellectual propriety issues. We also are discussing these issues with other concerned consumer groups within the EU. One of the priority aim behind the Community patent is broadly to make patent easier to obtain and cheaper to enforce. This is found only if the current patent system functions well. Well, we do not believe that it does. While there remain a number of key questions about the mechanisms, the institutions and the accountability, the push for Community patent will be resisted by public interest groups unless the European Commission deals with four prior issues. First, open up discussions and decisions on patent policy more stakeholders and considering other interests than right holders. Many of the initiatives taken by the European Commission in this field are done in close corporations with major rights holders making proposals one-sided. It is often forgotten that citizens and consumers are key stakeholders and discussions about the future of the patent system. A well-functioning patent system does not only mean low costs but also access. Today is a good start. Second. There must a clear statement to the purposes and objectives in this area. The European Commission has made a start but it almost exclusively claimed for more protection with economic growth and innovation. Patents are only one tool and should only be used if the benefits are well known and are superior to alternative mechanisms. Thirdly, the Community should acknowledge the limited role of the patent in economy and develop understandings on how to set appropriate limits. There is a need for a more ethical approach of the patent policy. But a policy developed on the base of independent studies on the real problems of the patent system, specifically the costs of the patent on society should be taken into account. If patents were costless, there would not be controversial. But they do present cost to society and in some cases not unacceptable cost. This includes excessive costs on patented inventions and highly prices on drugs in the EC member states. And such areas patents taken make it difficult to adopt standards for new technologies in the area of computing and communication devices and in many other areas. A good patent system recognizes and addresses the issues of costs and benefits by limiting the use of the patent system only to the area where benefits are clear, and secondly by limiting the rights associated to the patents in order to address social problems. We believe that there are several areas where the evidence suggests that patents should not be used. This includes business methods, software, medicines and certain areas where the patent system is not needed and represents barriers to the innovation process like medicines or clinical procedures. The European Commission should also look on how to develop new approach on how to make benefits worth rewarding innovation. For example, the exclusive rights should be reconsidered more formally the benefits in certain areas as a right to enumeration rather than a right to exclude. Fourth and finally, when the patent system is used, there must be an effective mechanism to address abuses and a public interest in a liberal view of the inventions. This just not only involved competition power. The limitations and exceptions of rights must include public authority to authorize non-nominative and non-voluntary use of inventions like constructive obligations of patents owners. Only if the European Commission deals with these issues with more associations to implement these objectives within the Community patent there will be benefits for society.

Michelle Childs presentation

26-MariaLudovicaAgro-it,03:22:43-03:27:36

Maria Ludovica Agro speech

27-FabienRaynaud-fr,03:27:36-03:33:02

Merci Madame la Présidente, Je voudrais d’abord dire que les autorités françaises se félicitent de l’heureuse initiative prise par la Commission européenne de procéder à cette vaste consultation sur l’avenir du brevet en Europe. La France partage pleinement la volonté politique de la Commission européenne de promouvoir une politique des brevets global et cohérente. Cette politique doit être destinée à améliorer l’efficacité du système européen des brevets. Cela passe notamment par la création du brevet communautaire. Les autorités françaises souhaitent que le brevet communautaire soit mis en place rapidement, il constitue en effet un outil supplémentaire pour favoriser le développement de l’innovation en Europe conformément à la stratégie de Lisbonne et il s’inscrit pleinement dans l’objectif d’une Europe des projets qui a été réaffirmé au dernier conseil européen. Ce souhait, c’est aussi celui du Parlement français. Les délégations aux affaires européennes de l’Assemblée parlementaire et du Sénat se sont prononcées en ce sens dans leur rapport en mai dernier. Les deux délégations, tout en appelant à la ratification du protocole de Londres se sont clairement prononcées en faveur d’un déblocage rapide du brevet communautaire. Reste à savoir de quel brevet communautaire l’on parle. Pour la France, le brevet communautaire devrait répondre à plusieurs objectifs. Il doit être accordé à titre unitaire, ayant la même valeur sur tout le territoire de la communauté, il doit être accessible aux utilisateurs et représenter une économie substantielle par rapport à la situation actuelle pour un brevet européen moyen. Il doit assurer une grande sécurité juridique grâce à un système juridictionnel intégré. Il doit être d’aussi grande qualité que le brevet européen, car la qualité des brevets de l’OEB est un atout majeur pour l’Europe. C’est pour cela que le brevet communautaire doit être délivré par l’OEB selon le principe de centralisation. Enfin, il doit respecter le multilinguisme européen qui est un élément clef de notre identité commune. Pour être une réussite, le brevet communautaire doit atteindre à ces objectifs. L’accord de mars 2003 y parvient-il ? Pour les autorités françaises, la réponse est positive. La France est attachée à l’accord de mars 2003, qui est de son point de vue la seule base possible pour un accord définitif parce qu’il objet d’un accord unanime des Etats membres et parce qu’il représente, tout compte fait, même s’il n’est pas idéal, un compromis. Permettez-moi de dire quelques sur ce point, Madame la Présidente. L’accord de mars 2003 remplit les objectifs que j’ai indiqués. Il assure le caractère unitaire du brevet puisqu’il prévoit que le brevet constituera un titre unique valable sur tout le territoire de la Communauté. Il permet de réduire le coût du brevet en Europe, puisqu’un brevet couvrant 25 Etats serait moins coûteux qu’un brevet européen actuel. Il apporte une réelle sécurité juridique grâce à un système juridictionnel communautaire et pour principe que la langue dans lequel le brevet a été délivré est la langue dans laquelle il fait foi. Il maintient le même niveau de qualité puisque c’est l’OEB qui délivrerait le brevet communautaire. Et enfin, il respecte le multilinguisme européen puisque les revendications, termes juridique du brevet, seraient traduites dans toutes les langues de l’Union. Un mot sur les points linguistiques de l’accord, puisqu’il a fait l’objet de plusieurs critiques. La Commission européenne le relève avec pertinence dans ses conclusions préliminaires. Il fait l’objet de remarques contradictoires. Certains lui reprochent de prévoir trop de traductions, d’autres de ne pas en prévoir assez. C’est peut-être le lot des compromis d’être critiqués des deux côtés. Mais au total ce compromis trouve de notre point de vue un équilibre entre ces deux objectifs légitimes et contradictoires. Alors maintenant, comment sortir du blocage actuel. Le blocage actuel trouve sa source au moins autant dans la question du système juridictionnel que dans celles de la valeur juridiques des traductions. La Commission européenne relève d’ailleurs justement que de nombreuses réponses ont critiqué le système juridictionnel prévu comme étant trop centralisé. Cette question mérite certainement d’être approfondie. Et ce point a d’ailleurs été abordé par la délégation aux affaires européennes du Sénat. Cette délégation a esquissé dans son rapport plusieurs pistes pour un futur compromis, qui méritent sans doute d’être examinées. Sur la question du système juridictionnel, en suggérant de laisser à chaque Etat la possibilité de choisir entre une première instance nationale ou une première instance communautarisée avec dans tous les cas un appel communautaire. Sur la question de la valeur juridique des traductions en proposant de permettre aux juges de tenir compte de l’erreur de traduction en cas de bonne foi du contrefacteur présumé. En conclusion, puisque mon temps est écoulé, je voudrai souligner que les autorités françaises sont prêtes à apporter leur plein concours à la Commission et à la présidence finlandaise pour aboutir le plus vite possible à un accord définitif sur le brevet communautaire. Merci madame la Présidente.

28-MarcelinoCurrelSunol-en,03:33:02-03:38:22

The name of our organization is PIMEC as the acronym for small and medium-sized enterprises in Catalane. Our organization is the most important organization of SMEs in Catalane. Our opinion is shared by all SMEs on this full territory that is half a million SMEs generating a value of seventy thousand million euros. In the scenario established by the patent law, the active users and the general public are passive users. Spanish enterprises play much the role of passive users than the role of active users. PIMEC with regrets cannot support the establishment of the Community patent because it would contravene the following principles. First, having in mind the traditional principles of monopoly in exchange of disclosure, PIMEC considers than of the most important principles is to balance the interests of the patent owners with the interests of the general public. This principle would note be respected. Second, the principle of legal certainty. Legal certainty would not be achieved if only the claims into the official languages as provided by the article 69, EPC. Third, the principle of constitutionality. The Spanish Constitution orders that publicity must be given to all acts which create obligation for the citizens in general. The absence of such publicity would infringe the rights of the citizens to effective judicial protection. Fourth. Last but not least. PIMEC must recall the principles of respecting the technological cultural heritage for the member states that is the patents that involved technology must be available for the citizens in their own language. The Spanish SMEs are very interested to know at the complete document in Spanish. In fact, in 2005, over one million and six hundred thousand in Spanish downloaded on the Website of the Spanish patent office. Taking into account the economic aspects, PIMEC must recall that the aim of the proposed changes is to obtain cheaper a competitive Community patent by means of savings consisting into translating only the claims but not the complete text of the patent. However, one requirement to obtain the patent would be infringed. The requirement of disclosing the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete to be understood for a person skilled in this domain, article 83 EPC. Therefore, the alleged saving of the translation cost is a fallacious jeopardy. Why? Because very often there will be no saving of translation costs. Indeed, where the first user would have to translate the complete patent, the second user would ignore that the translation already exist. Then, the translation of the same text would have to be done multiply and the general public would be obliged to encore several time in the cost spent one time by the patent office. Dear President, Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your attention.

Marcelino Currel Sunol speech

29-CatherineDruezMarie-fr,03:38:22-03:43:25

Merci, Madame la Présidente. La chambre de commerce et d’industrie de Paris représentée ici par l’un de ces centres de recherche l’IRPI, Institut de Recherche en Propriété Intellectuelle Henri Desbois réitère à la Commission européenne son soutien au principe de la création d’un brevet communautaire. Si un accord a été trouvé en matière de marques et de modèles, il serait regrettable de ne pas y parvenir pour les brevets. Toutefois le brevet communautaire ne doit se substituer ni aux brevets nationaux ni au brevet européen. Les entreprises sont attachées à la coexistence de ces titres, sachant que leur attrait pour l’un ou pour l’autre dépend non seulement de la couverture géographique pour protéger une invention mais aussi de la complexité de la procédure et des coûts. Des systèmes européens communautaires devront être homogènes. Les mesures qui peuvent être à brève échéance afin de parfaire la politique européenne en matière de brevet permettront aux brevets communautaires d’aboutir plus facilement. Si la création du brevet communautaire doit donc constituer un objectif prioritaire pour l’Union, sa réalisation suppose la prise en compte d’un certain nombre de paramètre dont notre organisation a déjà eu l’occasion de s’exprimer notamment dans sa réponse sur le livre vert communautaire de 1997. Tout d’abord, le brevet communautaire afin de représenter un outil juridique utile aux entreprises doit apporter des avantages en termes de coût par rapport aux brevets nationaux et aux brevets européens. La question des coûts constitue en effet une des causes majeures de la difficulté d’accès des entreprises innovantes et tout particulièrement des PME au système des brevets. Des économies considérables sont censées résulter de la gestion centralisée du titre communautaire, mais il importe également de fixer dans les limites du raisonnable puisqu’il s’agit de fixer les frais de brevets délivrés et de procédure, et réduire ceux afférant aux traductions en en limitant impérativement le nombre. En tout état de cause, le régime linguistique prévu par le brevet communautaire devrait similaire à celui proposé par le protocole de Londres dont nous soutenons la ratification par la France. Il faut ajouter que nos entreprises insistent pour ne pas supporter les coûts des traductions, puisque moins de 2% des traductions seraient consultées en France par les utilisateurs. Par ailleurs le délai d’obtention du titre communautaire doit être réduit par rapport à celui du brevet européen. Afin de ne pas nuire à l’efficacité du titre communautaire, notamment dans les secteurs soumis à une évolution technique rapide. En outre, le brevet communautaire doit toujours conservé son caractère unitaire, ce qui signifie qu’il doit produire les mêmes conditions dans toutes l’Union européen et s’étendre pour tout ce territoire. Il ne doit notamment pas seulement être reconnu valide dans un certain nombre de pays de l’Union eu égard à la teneur des traductions, et, une fois délivrée, il ne doit pas non plus faire l’objet d’une renonciation pour certain pays seulement. Enfin, dernier point, non le moindre, la centralisation judiciaire est une condition d’effectivité du brevet communautaire. En effet, le brevet communautaire devant garantir la sécurité juridique doit relever d’un système judiciaire unifiée de manière à ce que les contrefaçons et les actions en validité soient visibles et uniformes dans toute l’Union européenne. Cela suppose d’une part que le contentieux de la validité et celui de la contrefaçon soient liées, d’autres part qu’une seule instance soit créée avec une possibilité de recours dans une court d’appel centralisée. Il s’agit d’un point particulièrement important. Il serait singulier selon nous de prévoir des mécanismes de règlement des litiges différents pour le brevet européen et le brevet communautaire, dans la mesure où le titre communautaire sera également délivré par l’Office européen des brevets. Aussi, approuvons-nous le système de règlement des litiges tel qu’il est suffisamment flexible pour le brevet communautaire et le brevet européen. En conclusion, nous souhaitons de tout cœur que les travaux entrepris depuis plus de trente ans par l’Union européenne pour aboutir au brevet communautaire sortent de l’impasse dans laquelle ils sont à ce jour. Il y va de l’intérêt de nos entreprises. Merci madame la présidente.

Catherine Druez-Marie

29-ThomasVinje-en,03:43:25-03:48:00

Thank you. I represent the European Committee for Interoperable Systems which is in short an international association dedicated to interoperability, fair competition and consumer choice in the information technology sector. Our association includes important patent owners including the number one of the patent owner in the world. All our members are interested into patent protection. As part of my contribution today, I would like to make three brief points. First, our position on the Community patent is that – for the reasons already mentioned –we firmly reject the political agreement on the Community patent. Second, any proposal on the Community patent should have the driving aim of the promotion of innovation and public interest. In particular, such a patent system should exclude the so-called trivial patents from patentability. Patent should reward protection for real innovation and the examination process should ensure proper exception and limitation to save the interest of users and innovators, recognizing that a patent system ultimately exist to benefit society as a hole and not merely to certain interests. In this context, any proposal should take into account the importance of interoperability of information and communication technology today and even more tomorrow. In the information society and in the information technology sector, products and technologies cannot stand on their own like a new drug. Technology products need to work together, interact and understand each other. Interoperability and network tomorrow empower the consumer by giving him much freedom of choice between available alternative technologies. Overall patent protection frustrates interoperability in the ICT sector, diminishes the incentives engaged in R&D and prevents the consumer from benefiting of innovation and free choice. Appropriate limits to the patent system should therefore ensure that patent is not use as a mean to confine users to particular technology by preventing that competition endangers interoperability and free choice. It is important to recall that the innovation conducts by software developers in the 1980s and in the early 1990s during the boom of the software industry was not subject to patentability; patent were not generally available for software and the scope of patent protection was still uncertain. Even if the Commission as well as the European Parliament cannot recognize the importance of interoperability in the context of the failed computer-implemented inventions directive, the issue of patents and interoperability is to be addressed, consistent with the EU historical support for interoperability as a policy objective. Innovation and interoperability should be promoted as well to obtain open and transparent multilateral standards and processes. In this context, ECIS encourages the European Commission to revise the 1992 communication on intellectual propriety rights and standardization. In particular, the Commission should facilitate the creation of standards and avoid patent ambitions by confirming the guarantee of extensive discussions. A clear statement on this issue will remove the legal uncertainty and open the debate on political solutions to the problem of standards. Thank you.

Thomas Vinje speech

30-Patrick Herman-en,03:48:00-03:54:00

Thank you Madam Chairman. Sorry, I am just a bit disappointed; I have just discovered my sit during the address of the last speaker. On the other hand I have taken good notes of the presentation and I want to express my congratulations for this consultation in the way it was conceived and in the way it has been implemented so far and most of all to inform the European Council, partly dedicated to innovation coming out on the key priorities of the European Commission in the framework of the Lisbon strategy coming out at the end of the year I assume. So, I want to reiterate my congratulations because the consultation so far in its preliminary results shows that the position we have been defending over the last few years is indicated by enterprises and stakeholders. Now it’s time for action and choosing the right option. And secondly I want to say that the Community framework remain the relevant framework for the European patent policy. It has been heard in some interventions and replaced that some stakeholders do not favour the Community patent. I think a question of choice, it is just the priority. And of course it is not a question of one on the other; it is more a question on choosing between EPLA and Compat, litigation and translation. Both systems could be mutually supported and complementary. Changes might occur in last the months which the consultation seems to be showing. We were in a situation a couple years ago where the whole Europe was waiting of a Community patent; and this time it seems we are going forward a system. But the Community will have to adapt to the shape of the Munich system. But the Community framework as far as I am concerned remains more than ever relevant, except of course that it has been relevant for twenty of thirty years without ever concrete resolution. And it seems that whatever solution that will be proposed by the European Commission in its communication or whatever comes out of this consultation it will be probably the last results for a long time. Our Prime minister, when he was invited hear, he has the privilege to address the European Parliament reminded the plenary session that we have seen something similar with the tragic events at the beginning of century and made a lot possible. But of course we are not talking about the type of tragic events in this case. Anyway, the Community patent would be one of the few proven immediately effective tools we have in our not so large Lisbon toolbox that should be used. So I have met the Prime Minister said during the spring summit and we said that if a solution was possible on a Community basis, the Community patent will be the area par excellence for enhanced corporations in the member states on the basis of the treaty of the European Union, article 11.11.8 of the treaty. We have of course similar arrangements coming to a number of member states; we have close intellectual propriety agreements with the Benelux trademark office. We have to come to a situation where some corporations will go forward to a common patent. This would be the perfect area to do so because it would of course satisfy all the conditions and that’s something we have to think about right now even though we are very confident that this process will come and that maybe a number of corporations might not be necessary. One day we deeply believe it could be successful and that it could present essential qualities and that all member states could and would be able to join these corporations easily Thank you.

Patrick Herman presentation in French

31-Charles Bouchard-en,03:54:00-03:58:38

Thank you Madam Chairman. Merck is large pharmaceutical founded in 1968 and now a global company based in the US. To the pharmaceutical industry IPR is absolutely vital. I think it’s not exaggerated to say that we live and die by the quality of patents and other IPR we have. And where there is no IPR typically there is no pharmaceutical industry and there is no search. This is especially important now as it takes some billion dollars and about ten year to bring a new chemical entity to the market. Speaking large, I agree with many of the comments that have been said before. As an industry we favour the Lisbon agenda and we are also very “communautaire” and our instinct therefore is to support the “Compat”. But we wouldn’t support the community patent at any price, like others we see there is a need for a unitary patent applicable and fully enforceable in all member states. The Community patent has to present savings not only for large companies but also for small and medium-sized companies and to academic research. And this regard, I would like to underline the comments by ProTon and many by the speakers of the SMEs. There is a fact that major pharmaceutical companies heavily rely on search, starting from basic research in academies or the search that is found in small and medium-sized enterprises. The basis of the innovation system in the US for example depends on synergy between academies and SMES, and if Europe can make a patent system that is attractive to academies in the stream of the search, large companies will also be greatly affected. The future Community patent, and there is to be one, should also be a high-quality patent. Even it were optional it would be very dangerous that low-quality patent would be delivered. The future European patent system should also be optional and coexist with already existing patent systems. And finally on the language question, we would certainly favour the adoption by everyone of the London protocol. And here you won’t be surprised because in our sector, the European Community, very successful established the European medicine agency, and there was even a discussion about that would be a single language regime. There is no doubt that the process of drug approval in the European Union will break down very quickly. So, in summary, we would say we do favour the “compat”. But it will take a long time, and looking back from institutions, there are a lot of reasons to say that this could be a long wait still. We would say that Community patent focuses on what can be done now that is the improvement of the Current system, the European patent and the language requirement, the cost requirement and adopting the EPLA. So this way, I just find myself repeating, I congratulate many of the speakers here pushing the adoption of the Community patent. And we would urge everyone to concentrate on what can be down now in the next two or three years. Thank you.

32-JacquelineMinor,en-03:58:38-04:01:55

Thank you. I’d like to thank all of the morning speakers and all of you for your very concentrate attention. People listen very attentively, very intensively to what was said. Concerning the summary of this particular panel, I would just say that we now all about the challenge we face, but we have to know about the keys to unlock them. We are running slightly late so in order not to be too much late, can I ask you to come back to lunch by 2:15 to begin this afternoon. There is a cantina on the first floor if you want to take risk yourself to the Commission food… Bon appetit.

---

v003.wav

34-MarjaLeenaRinkineva-en,00:00:00-00:10:40

Marja Leena Rinkeneva presentation

35-Scordamaglia-en,00:10:40-00:25:37

36-DidierHuck-fr,00:25:37-00:31:28

Merci Madame la Présidente. Thomson est une société de technologie. Et nous détenons un portefeuille de brevets de 50000 brevets, que nous accroissons environ de 2000 brevets par an et que nous valorisons de manière active, c’est-à-dire en licenciant à travers la planète sans restriction les entreprises qui souhaitent avoir ou disposer de notre technologie. Pour Thomson, le brevet est un élément valorisant, un élément économique. J’exposerai donc les vues de Thomson sur le brevet communautaire. Je rappellerai quand même rapidement l’environnement, le temps presse. Le temps presse car les grandes puissances économiques émergeantes développent leur propre système de brevet avec un soutien industriel fort. Et pour cela il est essentiel- à un moment où l’Europe doit faire face à un certain nombre d’enjeux, que la politique de R&D soit soutenue par une politique de propriété intellectuelle efficiente, et que cette propriété intellectuelle soit strictement et fortement protégée car nos concurrents ne nous feront pas de cadeaux. Je rappellerai quelques principes essentiels du brevet communautaire. La simplicité des processus de délivrance, éviter les duplications inutiles. Minimisation des coûts d'obtention et de maintenance des brevets, car il est important de connaître la durée de vie du brevet. S’appuyer sur le protocole de Londres que nous appelons de nos vœux, qu’il soit ratifié dans les plus brefs et les meilleurs délais, afin que les brevets délivrés existent dans une des trois langues, la traduction des revendications servant en cas de contentieux. Enfin, un point très important, la continuité des principes et des critères de délivrance actuelle ne remettant pas en cause ce qui marche. Il y a suffisamment d’enjeux pour ne pas déstabiliser le système actuel. Les objectifs du système de règlement des litiges. Que recherchons-nous ? La cohérence des décisions de la jurisprudence, c’est-à-dire avoir une sécurité juridique mais aussi une prédictibilité juridique au moment où les cycles de technologies sont beaucoup plus rapides, au moment où il y a de plus en plus de concurrents autour de la planète, ce point est d’autant plus important. La simplicité de résolution des problèmes juridiques. Ne pas aller dans deux, trois, quatre, cinq pays. Un point unique. Et enfin, cela a largement été souligné précédemment, la proximité et la simplicité d'accès, ne pas à avoir à traverser toute l’Europe et pouvoir s’exprimer dans une des langues relativement accessibles. Alors que faut-il retenir aussi ? Il faut également retenir aussi que la durée de procédure doit être raisonnable ? Ne pas partir pour trois ou quatre ans. Certains pays l’ont très bien compris, ils reconnaissent la propriété intellectuelle, mais pour la valoriser c’est un cycle de dix ans après quoi la propriété intellectuelle aura disparu. Des coûts de procédure acceptable, bien entendu, il s’agit de ne pas à avoir à engager des sommes sur une durée supérieure à ce que cela va rapporter. Enfin, point d’autant plus important que les approches sont différentes selon les pays, des magistrats spécialisés dans le droit des brevets qui est une condition sine qua non pour la qualité des décisions, la qualité de la motivation des décisions, cette qualité étant la source de sécurité juridique. Enfin, c’est un point aussi important lié à la qualité des magistrats, des sanctions, mesures de réparation appropriées aux litiges, de manière à éviter la récidive, de manière à doser justement. Alors, bien entendu, comme d’autres intervenants, Thomson souhaite la mise en place de l'EPLA. La mise en place de l’EPLA avec une institution juridique unique, de manière à assurer la cohérence des décisions, de manière à avoir une simplicité de résolution, de manière à avoir des coûts et des procédures simples. Des chambres décentralisées dans les principaux pays, là où les litiges existent, que l’on puisse s’adresser à elles. Toujours la simplicité d’accès, la durée de procédure notamment au regard des problèmes des PME, qu’il faut soutenir. Avec des magistrats spécialisés, c’est le problème de la qualité des décisions délivrées et l’adaptation des sanctions comme je l’ai déjà souligné. Et enfin, une instance d'appel, géographiquement unique, où la jurisprudence va se concentrer également, c’est cette cohérence permettant d’éviter la taille critique de dispersion des moyens.

Didier Huck presentation

37-UrsFurrer-en,00:31:28-00:36:40

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present of views of ICC, the International Chamber of Commerce. ICC is the main organisation and representing body that speak with authority on behalf of the enterprises from all sectors in every part of the world. Currently, European patents are enforced nationally which can lead to conflicted interpretations by different national courts and increase the cost as well as increasing legal uncertainty. Moreover, the cost for obtaining patent protection including translation cost is high. This makes it difficult for small innovators to participate fully in the patent system. This is also a disadvantage compared to other systems such as the US system or the Japanese one. Therefore, reducing patent cost and establishing a European patent litigation system should be key priorities. ICC supports the EPLA as the best proposal so far for a common judiciary system to deal with European patent For companies, the use of such a pan-European litigation agreement as set up in the draft of EPLA would enable them resolve to patent abuse in a timely and cost effective manner while at the same time generating a coherent and harmonized body of European case laws on patent infringement and patent validity. Such a system would also reduce cost by eliminating the need for litigation in other cases. Alternative proposals cannot provide the advantage the EPLA provides. A Community patent litigation system concerns only Community patent and has nothing to do with patents that will not be Community patent. The EPLA provides just that. Regarding the patent system in Europe that is national, Community and European patents, ICC does not foresee any conflict between the proposed EPLA and the existing law. Furthermore, the European patent litigation system will not be inconsistent or prejudicial in any way concerning the development of the community patent but complementary to this development for the following reasons. Currently, the Community patent proposal made by the Common political approach of March 2003 does not satisfy the important criteria set by ICC for a Community patent system to be acceptable to business. These are fully litigation arrangement and low cost for obtaining and maintaining Community patents. The insufficient resources and limits for the proposed Community patent, the lack of regional chambers, the language requirement and the respected translation regime costs are the main efficiencies made on the proposal. Therefore, ICC does see the viability of the Community patent. If that ever happens, it will take sometime to put into place. In the midterm there is a real need for the judicial system that corresponds to the European patent Secondly, the EPLA will still be required irrespective to whether the Community patent happens. This is the cost to provide a litigation patent system for a base of a number of European patents already granted which will be the pool for years but not for Community patent. Even if the Community patent is established, the European patent office will each year still manage many thousands of European patent that will not be Community patents Further, such a system will provide some experience of our common judicial system from which the Community can bounce it. Thank you Madam Chairman.

Urs Furrer presentation

38-VincentTilman-en,00:36:40-00:39:45

Merci. Je suis francophone et francophile mais je me ferais un plaisir de faire mon intervention en anglais, pas pour me sauver des coups ici, mais… Eurochambre participated to the consultation made by the Commission to improve patents in Europe. But as a preliminary remark, I would like to say that any change in the existing system should definitely be driven by research for accessibility of the system for the SMEs. We insist on the need to have a cost effective system for the whole European Union and definitely the member states to take courageous and ambitious measures to simplify the existing system. Chambers of Commerce informed SMEs on a daily basis at a local level left me an extremely complex task to explain a SME what is the London protocol, what is the EPC, the European patent convention, the ECP, the European Community patent, or the possible EPCt, the European patent court, etc., etc. We figure concerning the jurisdiction aspects of the European patent system the right to litigate and we strongly support the initiative to improve the system to make it more coherent, to have more legal security and to have skilled lawyers and judges on this issue. We would like to propose also an alternative which has been not touched upon up to now. There are alternative to court system and if we believe in strong courts at European level we want strongly to encourage the use of alternative disputes and procedures like mediation. Mediation is the process where two or more parties negotiate together with the help of a neutral party to find a common agreement. About seventy percent of the cases are solved within a few days even less than that and this is in the great interest of every parties. And this was the last point where I wanted to conclude my speech. Thank you very much.

Eurochambers position paper

Vincent Tilman presentation

39-RaimundLutz-en,00:39:45-00:44:42

Thank you Madam Chairman for giving me the opportunity to express my views and also thanks for the Commission for organizing this very interesting debate reassembling the great majority of stakeholders recognizing that the European patent needs to be improved. Let me also point out that we already have an outstanding system for protecting inventions in Europe, which is the enemy of the rest of the world. We should be very careful not to damage this system with our reflexions our decisions otherwise we will do more harm on the innovative industry in Europe. Therefore, such a debate should serve only to make the existing system even better with targeted improvement and changes. But this is even a hard task. Basically, there are three key points. The first point is reducing translation cost for European patents, that the so-called London protocol takes effect. Secondly, we need to establish an additional uniform patent which cover all EU member states with a single patent and the Community patent would be the solution for this. And thirdly we need to establish a European patent jurisdiction. This particular debate is supposed to deal with the issues of jurisdiction so I will now concentrate on this point. The features of the future European patent litigation system should be determined pragmatically. Most importantly the system has to be accepted by the applicants of patents and their competitors because they are supposed to make use of it later. The draft of the European patent litigation agreement, the so-called EPLA, seems to best satisfy the need for a unified court system with the existing European patents and under the European patent convention. It would be based on the existing structure of the patent judiciary in Europe and would smooth the transition from a national jurisdiction to a European one. EPLA is not only support by European industry but also by European patent judges and European patent attorneys. In other words, it is supported by those persons who actually are affected by patent litigation in Europe. This should be a more than convincing argument for establishing the EPLA system. The Commission has indicated that it is considering stronger involvement in the EPLA. The chairman government and also the chairman of the patent court welcome this initiative. Of course, we still have some open questions to deal with. Some of these are of purely technical character, other concerns the relationships between the EPLA and the Community law, and specifically the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. We are convinced, however, that these questions can be resolved. In any case, we see no alternative to the swift realisation of this goal. By this, we would quickly and definitively improve the conditions by patents under the European patent convention. And this would also serve as an important condition to the Lisbon strategy. Nevertheless, the Community patent, if it is efficient, cost effective and legally certain, also reminds us of our common ambitions. The EPLA system does not stand in opposition to the future Community patent; instead two kind of European patent protection would be complement. The ultimate goal of course is to have only one uniformed patent litigation system in Europe competent for the European bundle of patents delivered by the European patent office and for the future Community patent. Thank you.

Raimund Lutz

40-EugenPopp-en,00:44:42-00:50:05

Thank you very much Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you on behalf of Patentwalts which represent all German patent attorneys. I would like emphasize the support the European Commission’s initiative of taking this step to improve the patent system in Europe. We agree that the fundamental features of a sound patent system have been highlighted by the European Commission in its questionnaire. And one of the most fundamental features is a European patent system delivering high quality patent with legal certainty. And in most of today’s speakers’ opinion, these presumptions are fulfilled in the present EPC system and in the London protocol as mentioned several times that would make the system more affordable. What is decidable is a litigation system with harmonized procedural law. We consider that the propose litigation system for the Community patent and I mean the system on the basis of the key elements of the common political approach fails for several reasons which have already been mentioned and I wouldn’t like to be redundant on this matter. But let me from a practitioner’s view and further reasons explained something. Technical judges are not considered to be part of the board. According to our experience, technical judges play a significant role by always respecting by validity questions which are always dominated by technical aspects and that extensive and correspondingly evidence by experts can be avoided. And I strongly recommend all the law-makers to attend the proceedings the technical board of Munich or the technical board of appeal of the European patent office in order to see how extremely qualified this technical judges were in corporation with technically and legally educated counter parts patent attorneys. In that far, the European Commission is not prepared to prepare the revised draft regulation considering all the different objections raised also today against the present proposal and I am still of this opinion that an alternative and promising solution is to implement the EPLA and the London protocol. And the preliminary findings and also M. Notebaum’s introduction give the impression that we are against the Community patent in its actual form. This is absolutely wrong. We object only what the industry objects as well that is the present draft regulation. What is left is EPLA because harmonization has been rejected by most of the stakeholders. What are the advantages of the EPLA? The proposal is ready to be signed. The proposal is fully supported by all members concerned. The proposal also provides a solution for an existing European patent, and a European patent which still be granted. Besides, the Community patent should become reality. The appointment of technical judges guarantees corresponding technical expertise. The proposal can be reconsidered with Community law in views of their place based on national structure that permits interactions with national jurisdiction and further big advantages for its mandatory. We are in the opinion that EPLA and the London protocol are possible. Work on the EPLA is possible because member states seem sincere with the European Commission goals’ politically and legally. If the European Commission withdraws the present Community patent proposal, the issue could be cleared with a diplomatic conference. From a legal point of view, both regulations 40/4/2001 as mentioned as well as the directive on the enforcement of the intellectual propriety are compatible. And considering the two alternatives presented up to now, EPLA appears to be the most promising litigation system regard to already existing European patents with enforcement closer to the user’s requirement supported by the European Parliament: harmonization by common European appeal court, proper language regime corresponding to the language regime of the grant proceedings and technical expertise by the technical judges. And finally, we would like to point out that irrespective to the finally implemented European litigation system qualified patent attorneys should have to provide the representation of rights including the rights of audience. Thank you very much.

Eugen Popp speech

41-TimFrain-en,00:50:05-00:56:13

Thank you. I am Tim Frain from Nokia. Nokia is a well-know and appreciated company in Europe, so I would not spend time into explaining what we do. Our success is founded on innovation and we are a major user of the European patent system. We also licence technologies from other, so in that sense we are right holders in licensing. We also have experience of patent litigation as plaintive and unfortunately as a defender. I'd like to address my remarks on litigation and particularly the EPLA. Nokia is not an opponent of establishing a centralised litigation system of European patent but neither do we welcome it unconditionally without doubts. We agree that moving ahead with the EPLA could have advantages for the users, particularly in the absence of a Community patent as we just heard, but it does need to be supported by the majority, preferably all the member states to bring the benefits truly a judiciary unitary system. But we do have some concerns which I’d like to summarize in five points. The first is the comparative costs. I would say that at least in our experience it is quite unusual to litigate patent in several countries and even more unusual to litigate patents in several European countries at the same time. Not a jurisdiction in Europe is an exception, not the general rule. So, to our concerns, in our views, if the EPO has estimated for example that the cost of a centralised litigation system will be more double the cost than litigating nationally in France or in Germany, especially having the choice of using national courts to litigate in the future. On the other hand, a higher cost may be justified for a centralised court to bring clear additional benefits compared to the existing national systems. The second point is about the reliability of decisions and the possible new risks that may be brought. So we recognize that the EPLA may be a good thing for right holders, I mean those who are seeking to enforce patents. But in order not to have detrimental invention fact genuinely it is important to balance the interest of all stakeholders and also carefully taking into account the interest of computing innovators and users of technology and indeed society at large. So the quality and the reliability of a decision made by the European patent court will be of utmost value and infringement of validity decisions will apply across the whole Community so bringing new reaching risks both for users of technology and patent owners. In particular, the European patent court will have the power to allow injunctions and provisional injunctions on the whole Community which clearly represents substantial new risks for any technology providers in Europe. For any company like Nokia that patent across the whole Europe, the centralised decisions about patent infringement are extremely far-reaching consequences, quite literally. And therefore, it must be of the highest quality and reliability. Third point is about procedural rules. Regarding to the substantive law, we believe that it is extremely important to have clear procedure rules visible from the outside and I mean before the EPLA is adopted not afterwards. The existing national litigation systems have different advantages and disadvantages even in procedural rules which in practice mean the choice of means as an important factor for anyone to enforce a patent in Europe. A new procedural code for a centralised system must look to and be built on the best practices of the current national systems. Otherwise, any centralised system risk to be inferior to what we have today. Fourthly, I have a point about the jurisdiction being descript in the patent issues. Often in practice, question of patent infringement, at least in the telecom industry came to the competition patent law. And this new European patent court with exclusive jurisdiction on infringement and validity issues. The jurisdiction on non-patent matter solely based on national courts and having to run uncoordinated in the proceedings both at national and centralised level giving rights to increase the complexity and the cost. And if I may point this very quickly, we would like to see that the EPLA remains as an option solution for litigators in the long run, not a mandatory process in the long run Thank you.

Tim Frain

42-KlausDieterLangfinger-en,00:56:13-01:01:45

Thank you Madam Chairman for giving me the opportunity to express the understandings of UNICE as well as on behalf of my employer BASF and representing about twenty million enterprises of small and medium-sized to international companies. I think it should points of importance in the procedural. I think that we all agree today that a reliable litigation system when it comes to litigation I mean, we all need a best litigation system. When we can’t avoid it, we need litigation consistent and efficient and this is a key for all IP parties for plaintives or defendants. Consistent means and in particular to avoid wide conflicting decisions in different countries as far as possible. And this has also been expressed earlier and efficiently that we should use the existing resources we have and we had the last decade as soon as possible to this regard. Now, unfortunately, I have to say something about the original concept of the judicial system and the Community patent: these essential features were lost. The concept based on a common political compromise, a common approach did neither fulfil the need of consistency nor the needs of cost efficiency. Having patent in 21 languages using of the three official languages as the mandatory rule for the proceedings neither create consistency nor cost efficiency. And we shouldn’t forget one thing: five years has already past since the European Community claimed to become the richest knowledge based economy in the World according to the Lisbon agenda by 2010. This has still not very much be achieved I am afraid and we simply can't afford lose more time. Although the actual situation is far away from providing optimistic view concerning the future, we still have a chance to improve at least the situation gradually and to get moving. Concerning the translation requirement and the European patent convention, I would say that the London protocol is a necessary step and it has been emphasized very earlier today. In terms of traditional litigation agreement, we have the European patent litigation agreement which provides important steps in the right direction. The wild-established and experienced resources we have in Europe, for instance including, and I repeat what has already been said before, the technical judges in various EU countries would make an immediate start possible to bring a new departure by setting up a completely new court without an existing infrastructure, and in particular without an efficient number of judges experience in patent litigation. The proposed language regime and the EPLA solution move us forward on the road of the efficiency. A centralised court would ensure the sufficient degree of harmonization in last instance. Thus, EPLA would lead to consistency and efficiency. Being an optional agreement, EPLA would to leave up to an individual decision whether or not or a member state to a new agreement. But it is reasonable to assume that over the time the benefits of the agreement will increase as the rules become transparent and that provides an incentive for any member state of the European Union to join. And at this point, EPLA would be a positive experience made for a sound and acceptable judicial patent regime. And it should still be the final goal we are aiming for. And therefore EPLA in our understanding of competition should be fully supported for a future community patent system to convene a strong judicial system. This also should not forget, and this has also been said before, that there we have more than 700,000 patents granted by the EPO today. And they are waiting for patent litigation today and not in five or ten years from now. Therefore, we need something today. And as we all know also from the proposal there is an important need for having a litigation system for European patents. And this need for litigation will continue to increase in the future. So let me summarize, if we want to achieve the goals of the Lisbon agenda, we have to start actually today, and this means that we should try to do what we can do now without losing the sight of our original goal. Thank you.

Klaus-Dieter Langfinger

43-DanielAlge-en,01:01:45-01:07:29

Thank you very much. I have the pleasure to make this presentation on behalf of FICPI, the international association of intellectual propriety attorneys in private practice but also on behalf of many national patent associations of attorneys, for example the Eurochambre of patent attorneys. We are practitioners, so our members represent all kind of users, from small industry to small and medium-sized enterprises, universities and innovators. So we know a lot about patent and the real world before patent infringement proceedings. And we always supported the idea of the Community patent but one that is practically working. What are in the system structures that already work? We have good existing structures for granting patents, the European patent office, and in some member countries some good systems for enforcing European patents. On the EU level, we have well-working tools, such as the Brussels Convention and the IP enforcement directive, and we have a system for enforcement of Community trademark and design rights. There are some things new but there are also some things missing. For example, the connexion of the European patent convention to the real world, to the EU legislation for EPC is not the EU law and so there is no jurisdiction of the European court of justice which would have harmonization effect on national courts and some kind of limit of harmonization by the appeal board of the European patent office. And moreover, all countries have competent courts of first instance. So our very pragmatic request for the patent system of the future is that this is still a working system therefore it must be based on the existing structures and competences. The system must be balanced between all users and efficient enforcement proceedings must be provided especially by legally and technically legal courts. The future system must at least be as flexible as the system already working today and it must provide EU wide legal certainty. Therefore, we propose the use of the court system already working for EU trademarks and designs. So this should work for EU patents namely and for national competent court of first instance. There should be requirement to member states to slavish one patent competence by EU regulation which would force member states to provide this competence and effective proceedings for patent enforcement. The judge in such a court should in the best knowledge in the patent law. It should not be that the patent attorneys or lawyers presenting their cases have much more knowledge than the judges. Accordingly there should be right precautions for a patent attorney to safeguard the flexible and competent representation of the parties. So we like some features of the EPLA. But it is not a good instrument in general because mainly based on a diplomatic conference; it is not flexible, not responsive to the need of users, susceptible to change regarding the EPC supposed to enter in force in 2007. Moreover in order to change, the EPLA will also not even fulfil the criteria that any national court of first instance has to fulfil for reaching IP enforcement criteria. In order to change, there should have also a diplomatic conference. We think that it is also relevant for the Community patent as proposed. And we think now there are some irrelevant articles of the EPC for the patent law. And most of the articles nearly proposed in the Community patent regulation should be combined in the EU regulation. So this would lead to a final harmonization which is safeguarded by the European court of justice. So the European patents, for the member states, as it is now, when the European patent has been validated, the proposal become the Community patent. So then the Community patent takes effect in each of the validated member state. So this would be guaranteed by the European court of justice. The European patent office should also be careful as the granting authority and carefully coordinate its activity with the European court of justice So we want to establish the future patent system by combining excellent existing structures and to achieve and effective balanced system which is working in practice and not only in theory and have the maximum possibilities of harmonization for the benefit of all the users. Thank you very much.

Daniel Alge presentation

43-Erikjosefsson,en-01:07:29-01:12:48

Honourable Chair, ladies and gentlemen.

The FFII represents 3,500 IT companies and 100,000 IT individuals. I will speak on behalf of the FFII constituency. As has been said by other speakers, the EPLA will make litigation 2-3 times more expensive. These numbers come from the EPO. What does this mean for SMEs? It means that if you are an SME and have a patent, it will become harder to enforce your patent because litigation just became 2-3 times more expensive. It also means that if you are an SME and accused of patent infringement, it becomes harder to defend yourself because litigation just became more expensive. And if you cannot defend yourself, you will be forced to license, even if the patent is weak or invalid. Granted patents that are invalid are a plague, yet 50 % of all patent litigation concerns patent validity. That means every second trial relates to a problem that should not be there in the first place. Every second patent trial is a trial which could be 100% cheaper for all parties involved if the organisation responsible for the granting of patents would have taken it's full responsibility, but also if these patents would never have been filed. Patent inflation is not a victimless crime. The victims are SMEs, even more so if litigation becomes 2-3 times more expensive. But instead of fighting patent inflation and work on the problems at the EPO, we are now focussing on litigation. Why is that so? Maybe the answer lies close to what the Commission recently said in the Extended Consultation documentation, where the Commission strongly criticised the European Patent Office over attempting to define European patent policy. I quote:

• Whilst being basically a patent granting office, the EPO has ambitions to steer patent policy at European and international levels. It has a business culture of its own with very little understanding for what happens in Brussels in a more global context. Initiatives from Brussels implying changes to the existing multilateral European patent system are considered as an attack on the holy writ. The EPO has close ties with national patent offices and far less with the ministerial level in Member States. Recently the EPO has become subject to growing criticism by MEPs and various EU Member States for a lack of political accountability.

End quote.

Now, if lack of political accountability is considered a problem, why give the EPO even more power? The EPLA would remove all national patent courts and put a single European-wide court in its place. However, the judges of this European-wide court would be appointed by the people who run the European Patent Office. Moreover, these judges could hold positions at the European Patent Office in parallel. Further, every six years these judges can be re-appointed if they live up to the expectations of, again, the very same people who run the European Patent Office. EPLA puts an executive organisation in charge of running the judiciary. This is unacceptable. Tax offices, city planning departments and social assistance offices do not re-appoint judges deciding over their work, and there is no reason why a patent office should be exempted from this rule. An executive must not control the judiciary. The Commission, if anyone, must know that. Why this extremism? Petty differences between EPO and national interpretation and patent practice need not EPLA to be resolved. European judges can themselves find out if e.g. the special term "edible fruit" is disclosing prior art compared to the general term "vegetables". But the more serious, EPO also thinks programs for computers are inventions, even if EPC and its national implementations say that they are not. This is a fundamental difference. It has been said the centralised US court "Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit" was the driving force behind the introduction of software and business method patents in the US. Maybe this is the most important reason why EPO needs EPLA, but is it what Europe needs? The answer from the European Parliament last year was No. Thank you.

44-LuisAlfonsoDuran,en-01:12:48-01:17:52

Thank you Madam President. I want to start by thanking the European Commission for inviting AIPPI (Association internationale pour la protection de la propriété industrielle) to present its views in this public debate. AIPPI is the world's leading International Organization dedicated to the development and improvement of intellectual property. The objective of AIPPI is to improve and promote the protection of IP on both international and national basis. These objectives in mind, AIPPI has to find solutions and make resolutions concerning the common system in Europe and its future. Copies of our resolutions are attached in the AIPPI reply to the questionnaire, available on our website, in the home page. For a patent system to work efficiently it needs to provide high-quality patents after serious examination and patent applications must be processed with a reasonable period of time in order to offer patent certainty not only to the owner but to all the parties. The jurisdiction needs to provide a clear mechanism under which the parties, that is to say patent owners, plaintive and third parties are able to confront their differences concerning patent infringement before the courts that take decisions which are sufficiently predictable in a reasonable period of time and at reasonable cost. To achieve this goal, it is essential that the court has a sufficient degree of experience and that procedure is formatted under uniformed rules. Language plays also an important role in the art of mediation; it plays a vital role in the definition of the patent rights and concerning the expectations of the parties as far as global protections is concerned, and also in the ability to understand what the other parties think as well as the ability to in a way that can be understood. With a multiple language regime, the situation is even more complicated when there is a conflict of interest. It would be easier for each party to use the same language, and the party which doesn’t use its mother tongue will find itself in the procedure. For all these reasons, AIPPI has decided the following the resolutions adopted in the last two congresses. First, to improve the quality and the predictability of the forthcoming patent cases in Europe, AIPPI recommends the jurisdiction to one or a few specialised chamber where each member state or group of member state which would form together the first European patent court with a possibility of an appeal. Secondly, uniformed rules and substantive laws should be developed taking into consideration the proposal of EPLA and the recent EU enforcement directive with the aim that national patents and European patents will be litigated according to the same rules. Third, patent judges in our countries should be chosen according to their experience and their interest in patent litigation and continuing career in this area should be encouraged. Fourth, the language of the proceeding in national and European cases should be the official language of the site of the respective national court with an option to agree to any other language if the parties agree. Courts are encouraged to establish their own jurisdiction, multilingual chambers of course where judges understand and speak a second language and can hear a case in this language. As far as EPLA is concerned, AIPPI is of the opinion that it should be well balanced in order to ensure a fair trial for all of the parties. AIPPI has not adopted the resolution concerning the current text of the EPLA as it should be shake our complete criteria before receiving AIPPI support. Obviously, if the Community patent is adopted a solution should be found to make litigation of the Community patent compatible with the litigation of national patent offices of the member states and the European patent office In this connexion, AIPPI has resolved that the litigation system of the Community patent and the EPLA should exist alongside one another and should establish individual appeal preferably in the same place. Thank you very much.

Luis-Alfonso Duran

45-PaulGeorgMaué,en-01:17:52-01:21:36

Merci, madame la Présidente.

As an European patent attorney and particularly as the president of the European Federation of Agents of Industry in Industrial Property – FEMIPI – some questions are coming up to my mind. The question is, I believe, not uncommon to be addressed this day or in the near future, for example as by a general director or a patent attorney. Tell me of which of the 31 EPC member states or in which 21 EU national languages of the member states should we start. Don’t forget the costs. Well, today, we have an overall well centralised procedure at the European Patent Office. However, the third phase of in the life of a patent – the enforcement or the litigation – is still a national procedure and further harmonization is really needed. A proposal levered over the past years and building even longer discussion, the EPLA is supported by us. I would like to concentrate on three main features we see. A centralised and unitary jurisdiction, in particularly one set of rule procedure that offering considerable simplification, with legally and technically qualified judges. It will also make available the expertise legal and technical which the patent attorney used in such procedure. A language regime must support legal certainty and be cost efficient. The three language of the European patent convention is the appropriate option to move over. In summary, FEMIPI supports the EPLA. It should be rapidly ratified. Further and more detailed information on our position can be found on our web page. And in the not so far future, I hope to hear that the EPLA is one small step in the EC and a giant step for the future European Patent system. Thank you.

FEMIPI position paper Paul Georg Maue presentation

46-EvaSchriever,en-01:21:36-01:25:20

Mrs Jacqueline MINOR

As you know, we should have café now. But what I purpose is that we move forward not to lose time. We have to bash on. For those of you who need your café, café is available outside. Of course, I will ask you not to bring the café into this room. The reasons are probably as evident for me as it is for you. In order to hear as much as possible people, we don’t want to lose more time. The next speaker is a German lawyer, Miss Eva Schriever.

Eva SCHRIEVER

Thank you Madam Chairman. I am speaking on behalf of the Deutscher Anwaltverein, a German lawyer politically neutral body. I am also speaking on behalf of German attorneys very concerned with intellectual propriety. And I have been asked to present these following ideas on EPLA. The EU member states need the participation of the Community to create the EPLA. They cannot find an agreement without the participation of the Community. The reason is article 38 and following of the EPLA draft deals with jurisdiction and enforcement. This field is covered by the regulation 4/84/2001 which gives the Community an exclusive jurisdiction regarding international agreement on jurisdiction and enforcement. As it has been stated by the European Court of Justice in their decision 2003/2006 Therefore, we have to split competences. The Community is sole and exclusively competent for article 38 and following in the EPLA; the EU member states and the Community are competent for the rest of EPLA. How can the Community take part in EPLA? Since EPLA is an agreement depending on the European patent convention, the Community must first adder to this Convention which is only possible under the article 1.66 EPC that has been changed. [???] The Community should already now be admitted to the work on EPLA on the status of being already a member of the EPC The Community will have to coordinate the views of the member state for the whole agreement Thus, we cannot expect that all the EU member states will participate to EPLA. EPLA might become a crate of corporations. If this is to, we would need eight member states and the qualified majority of all EU member states to allow the creation of such corporations. A group of expert should be organized to advise the European Commission on applications of the legal situation that has been described and we all have to contribute to the work of such a group. Thank you very much.

47-FlorianMüller,en-01:25:20-01:30:42

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Some of you may already know me as the founder of the NoSoftwarePatents campaign, but let me start by introducing myself a little more specifically. I’m an independent software developer. Commercial software, that is - not open source. In addition, I am here to represent three companies: 1&1 Internet AG, which is Europe’s largest Web hosting company; Materna GmbH, an IT and telecommunications company; and MySQL AB, Europe’s largest open source software company. All three of those companies hold European software patents and are well aware of the problems that patents create in their markets. My corporate partners and I definitely don’t share the enthusiasm for the EPLA that some others have expressed. All that talk about optimizing the European patent system is nothing more than a pretext. Only in five to ten percent of all cases, parallel litigation involves the same patent in more than one European country. In all other cases, even the estimates of the proponents of the EPLA - such as an impact assessment by the European Patent Office - suggest a doubling or tripling of the total cost of litigation. That would disadvantage smaller companies in two ways: the prospect of expensive litigation would force them to settle on unreasonable terms if someone threatens to sue over an alleged infringement, and if they would like to enforce their own patents, they might not be able to afford it. In some industry segments, the patent system already has the effect that “might makes right”, and the EPLA would exacerbate that very problem. The actual motivation behind the push for the EPLA is this: it’s all about handing control over the judicial system - as far as patents are concerned - to the same group of people that governs the European Patent Office. Many patents that the EPO grants are declared unenforceable by the national courts that presently rule on infringement matters and make the final decision on the validity of a patent within their territories. In particular, national courts don’t tend to support the EPO’s practice of granting disguised software and business method patents. That fact is the only reason we don’t have US-style problems with software patent litigation in Europe yet. There are special interests that previously tried to make software and business method patents enforceable in Europe, and a little more than a year ago, the European Parliament put an end to that effort by rejecting an ill-conceived proposal for a software patent directive. The EPLA is just another attempt to give software and business method patents a stronger legal basis in Europe than they have now. Under the EPLA, the same group of people who control the EPO would get to appoint, and to periodically reappoint or dismiss, the judges. That same group negotiated the rejected software patent proposal in a working party of the EU Council, so we know all too well where they stand: they are infinitely more interested in growing the patent system than they are committed to Europe’s economic growth. Even worse, employees of the EPO would be allowed to serve simultaneously as judges on the EPLA court. For the sake of judicial independence, the proposed EPLA must not come into effect. From a software patents point of view, the EPLA would have far worse consequences than the rejected patentability directive would have had: not only would software patents become more enforceable in Europe but also would patent holders in general be encouraged to litigate. If the objective is to make Europe’s economy more competitive, we don’t need a system that makes litigation a more attractive option. We don’t even need cheaper patents: if SMEs have problems with the patent system, it’s not because of their own access to patents but due to the patents others can use against them. What we really need is fewer patents, and I don’t see a strategy on the part of the Commission to counter the trend of patent inflation. Last year, the EPO received more than 180,000 patent applications. If the past is any indication, those 180,000 applications will result in about 90,000 new patents. (The EPO granted “only” about 50,000 patents last year, but that’s because it has a backlog and hasn’t been able to catch up yet. Examination takes several years.) The fewest of those new patents relate to true inventions that justify the grant of a 20-year monopoly. In most cases, someone invented a patent instead of patenting an invention. Addressing that problem should be a far higher priority to the Commission and to Europe’s legislators than strengthening the position of certain types of patent holders. Thank you.

Florian Müller speech

58-AllenDixon,en-01:30:42-01:36:26

Thank you. Listening to the testimonies today, I find that an easy option that we have – from what have been done since thirty years – is to do nothing, for the current system works well, the examination procedure by the EPO, the opposition, yes they do. But frankly, the system works extremely. About the US system we don’t hear in Europe and there is not the need or frankly the political will to harmonize patents further. So doing nothing is a viable option but there are two – in my view – very practical options for improving the European system that could be made in the area of cost and litigation Practical step number one: the so-called London agreement could deeply reduce the cost of patent in Europe. And I really like M. Giuseppe Gargani testimony this morning, saying that the cost of the patent in the European patent system is about three times that expansive that it is in the US. The London agreement would provide a protocol to the European Patent Convention that would make patents available in only one of the three official languages, the EPO languages – English, French and German – in order to balance for the countries which join the London protocol, even if translation would be required in the matter of litigation, but this would deeply reduce the cost, securing patent protection. Seven country including the UK, Germany, etc. have already ratified the London agreement, Denmark is planning to join. Proper ratification of the London agreement is something that the member states and the Commission should take part of course. Let me make to indirect observations on this issue. First, national enterprises from all EU member states today already filed EPO application in French, German or English. I think we should stop pretending that the European patent system cannot work only with the three official European languages. It does already. Second, ratifying the London agreement is as necessary as the Community patent is. Why would any businesses use the Community patent when they have to 21 or even 33 mandatory translations when they could go instead to the European patent system? Language is something that is politically very sensitive but let’s be clear the language issue cannot be solved through something like the London agreement. Second, the other issue which regards proper consideration is the matter of consistency of the interpretation in litigation, the reason why to support the EPLA. There is a problem with actual litigation where decisions differ in different countries as far as the validity or the infringement of patent. There is also the problem of conception of case law in European country. EPLA would promote the authority and it would reduce the costs by centralising litigation. Let me just clear some misunderstandings mentioned that have been concerning the EPLA. First, this is not the feature of the European patent office. The EPLA has been proposed by eleven of the EU member states in litigation. It has to be ratified by the national governments not the EPO to go into effect. It is widely supported by national patent judges who would like to see consistency in patent decision. Second, this will save cost in litigation in the different jurisdictions. The EPO allows litigation in one, two or three countries. The EPLA will reduce the overall cost. This is the very place where we need to reduce litigation. Third, as someone mentioned, it’s not mandatory to use the EPLA system. It will still be part of the game to use national patents and national courts. It still will be possible to litigate in national courts There is nothing forcing anyone to use the system. And finally, the EPLA, the centralised court will be independent. Following the EPLA draft the administrative committee which is made up of member states government representatives and this future court is going to be as independent as any national court of the system.

Allen Dixon speech

59-GustaafDaemen,fr-01:36:26-01:40:44

Merci Madame la Présidente. Je représente la commission des affaires juridiques du Comité européen des assurances. Le CEA est une fédération européenne qui regroupe des fédérations nationales des assureurs dans 33 pays européens, ce qui au total représente plus de 5000 compagnies d’assurance. Pourquoi est-ce que les assureurs sont invités à se prononcer dans ce débat sur les brevets, les brevets qui ne touchent pas à notre profession journalière ? Et enfin, nous avons une position très spécifique dans ce débat. Tout d’abord, en tant qu’assureurs européens nous voulons tout d’abord souligner que nous nous inscrivons dans l’agenda, stratégie de Lisbonne, et que nous voulons tout faire pour rendre notre économie plus performante et que ce soit le brevet européen ou le brevet communautaire, si l’on peut le rendre plus attrayant, on peut apporter notre aide, surtout lorsque j’entends parler beaucoup les intervenants d’aujourd’hui qui se plaignent des coûts qui peuvent être très élevés, nous pourrons nous poser la question, est-ce que l’assurance de protection juridique pourrait aider à solutionner ce problème, surtout pour les PME, cette assurance de protection juridique pourrait être envisagée. Certains on cru dans le passé que l’on pourrait proposer une assurance juridique obligatoire, chaque brevet déposé devant être accompagné d’une assurance juridique obligatoire. Là, nous devons vous dire que cette solution nous semble pas la bonne, car tout d’abord à l’heure actuelle, il n’y a pas de statistiques fiables qui nous permettent de faire des calculs techniques nécessaires pour ces assurances risques. Et ensuite, nous avons effectué une enquête parmi nos membres, et cette enquête nous a démontré qu’il y a pratiquement aucune demande dans les différents Etats membres et également qu’il n’y a pas d’offre non plus, donc, l’on risque de ne pas avoir des fournisseurs et de prévoir une assurance juridique obligatoire sans prévoir de fournisseur. Ce qui, évidement, n’est pas une bonne chose. Alors, l’assurance de protection juridique obsolète et facultative, sur mesure, est-ce qu’une telle assurance est réaliste, on peut se poser cette question. Si la procédure comme on l’a entendu aujourd’hui pouvait être plus prévisible, plus certaine, que la durée de cette procédure soit relativement courte, que la procédure soit simple et que le coût de cette procédure soit raisonnable, cela pourrait certainement favoriser la réflexion des assureurs dans le cas d’une éventuelle assurabilité de ces risques. A nouveau, je pense surtout aux PME que l’on a d’ailleurs qualifiées de victimes, parfois dans les procédures, c’est ce que j’ai entendu cet après-midi. Si on pense en plus à des systèmes de médiation qui pourraient peut-être aider à solutionner ces problèmes pour les PME. Et nous nous tenons à votre disposition et à la disposition des autres parties avenantes de cette après-midi pour cette action. Merci.

Gustaaf Daemen presentation

52-JacquelineMinor,en-01:40:44-01:43:08

Thank you very much. It concludes the fourth debate, which was the debate about the jurisdiction on the European patent. Most of the debates focused on the EPLA, highlighting possible drawbacks in the future and in particular the interaction with the Community system. This is the most interesting area to emerge in the replies received and the Commission will have to reflect this point. What I purpose to do – and I am afraid we don’t have the opportunity to hear another speaker – is that for the remain of the afternoon, I don’t know what is the number of speakers today in the open debate, I purpose to do the following. After M. Pompidou’s speech, we should move straight to the open debate, and following the commissioners’ interventions, we could revert to the presentation of the results of the study on the economical and social values on the patent, for we need more econometric data on the impact of the future European patent. I think some of the results are very interesting and lightening in term of sustaining the future of the Europea Patet And if anybody has no objection to that, I purpose to welcome M. Pompidou. And it is really a pleasure to me to begin with M. Pompidou who is President of the European Patent Office.

60-AlainPompidou-en,01:43:08-01:53:53

I am very impressed by your capacity to keep the time table and it is not only a judge decision but also a wise decision. Ladies and Gentlemen, Damen und Ehren, Mesdames et Messieurs. Je tiens d’abord à remercier nos hôtes de la direction générale du marché intérieure et des services de la Commission représentée par la Présidente de séance, Madame Lehne, ainsi que le Commissaire McCreevy d’avoir invité l’office européen des brevets à s’exprimer au cours de cet audition. Et je dois dire que l’office européen des brevets a accueilli favorablement l’initiative de la Commission. Cette consultation a suscité un nouvel intérêt et a donné un nouvel élan à cette tâche ardue qu’est la réforme du système des brevets en Europe. L’office a répondu au questionnaire de la Commission européenne, sa réponse est disponible en ligne. Elle ne sera donc pas présentée ici, beaucoup d’entre vous la connaissent déjà ou la connaîtrons rapidement. Et le principal message que je souhaiterai transmettre aujourd’hui est le suivant. Nous devons soutenir toutes les entreprises innovantes en Europe par un système des brevets fort apportant la meilleure sécurité juridique. Parce que seul un système de brevet fort favorise l’innovation, laquelle contribue à son tour à la croissance économique. Parce que la clef de notre avenir réside dans une économie basée non pas sur les ressources matérielles, mais sur la transformation de la connaissance, l’ingéniosité, la créativité des innovateurs européen. Qu’est-ce que j’entends donc par entreprise innovante ? L’une de leurs caractéristiques, c’est que la plupart d’entre elles déposent des demandes de brevets. Et parmi les 34 200 déposants enregistrés à l’office européen des brevets en 2005, 90%, 90%, les 9/10 étaient des petits déposants, principalement des petites et moyennes entreprises, des organismes de recherche académiques, professionnels ou institutionnels déposant entre 1 et 5 demandes de brevets par an. Voilà les statistiques. De quel domaine technologique relève ces demandes? 11% seulement relevaient des secteurs des TIC. 9/10 demandes relevaient du secteur technologique en général, tels que l’électronique, l’automatisation, les besoins de la vie quotidienne, la chimie ou l’optique. Ces chiffres m’amènent à insister sur le point suivant. L’écrasante majorité des utilisateurs du système des brevets européen sont des petits déposants, dans des domaines technologiques, disons « non-controversés », à de très rares exceptions prêts, ce ne sont pas des demandes qui font la une des journaux. Le système des brevets en Europe doit être conçu pour aider non seulement de grands déposants, ceux qui amènent les grands grands marchés, mais également cette majorité silencieuse de petites entreprises innovantes et dynamiques qui peuvent conquérir de grandes parts de marché également. Elles ont fait le pari des brevets, elles seront le moteur de la croissance économique en Europe dans les décennies à venir, sous réserve que la politique des brevets européens reste suffisamment forte et homogène. Qu’est-ce que j’entends par un système de brevet fort? Premièrement, il faut veiller au bon fonctionnement, à l’amélioration continue des processus de délivrance des brevets et je m’y suis attaché et mon successeur, Mme Réblot, s’y attachera. Ces derniers temps, l’office européen des brevets s’est concentré sur la qualité. Il a mis en place un système très contraignant de contrôle de la qualité avec notamment un système d’audit interne. Deuxièmement, la protection par brevet doit être abordable, en particulier nous avons évité les coûts superflus, tels que celui des coûts liés à des traductions que personne ne consulte ou ne consultera. Le premier grand pas en avant a été réalisé en 1973, lorsque le régime de brevet officiel a été inscrit sur la Convention des brevets européens. Cette solution a rendu possible dans la pratique le travail de l’office européen de brevets. Aussi la publication de toutes les demandes à 18 mois est devenue un formidable moyen de diffusion des connaissances technologiques dans le monde entier et dans les trois langues officielle de l’Europe prévues par la Convention. En ce qui concerne l’étape qui vient après la délivrance, l’Europe doit maintenant abandonner l’exigence selon laquelle la totalité du brevet doit être traduite dans toutes les langues. Ce second pas en avant est sur le point d’être accompli et si l’accord de Londres entre en vigueur, les coûts des traductions après la délivrance diminueront au profit notamment de cette majorité silencieuse que j’évoquais tout à l’heure. Troisièmement il faut repenser encore la sécurité juridique, et ceci a été bien explicité tout à l’heure, en instaurant un système de tribunal européen pour que les titulaires de brevets leur procurant des licences et les contrefacteurs potentiels, sachent qu’en cas de litige impliquant l’un des 750 000 brevets européens, comme ceci a été évoqué tout à l’heure et délivrés à ce jour par l’office européen des brevets, relèvent et unique tribunal commun. Nous devons enfin mettre fin aux litiges parallèles portant sur un même et unique brevet européen et ainsi au coût élevé, au problème transfrontalier, à la pratique visant à trouver l’offre la plus avantageuse, le fameux « forum shopping », et à ces attitudes juridiques occasionnés par des divergences dans les offices nationaux qui fausse aujourd’hui les règles du jeu. Mesdames et Messieurs, l’EPLA doit être soumis à une conférence intergouvernementale le plus rapidement possible. Si nous arrivons à progresser sur les points évoqués ci-dessus nous ouvrirons la voie ainsi au brevet communautaire qui représente un complément indispensable au brevet européen car quoique nous fassions le brevet européen restera un faisceau de brevets validés dans certains pays, et l’accord de Londres ainsi que l’EPLA ne seront que des accords facultatifs, ce qui leur laisse certes une certaine chance d’entrer en vigueur, mais ce qui signifie aussi que tous les Etats membres ne participeront pas. En revanche, le brevet communautaire serait un titre unitaire, valable sur tout le territoire de l’Union européenne et cela a une importance capitale pour le principe fondateur du marché intérieur et pour garantir les conditions identiques à la concurrence dans toute l’Europe. Il est toutefois impératif que le futur brevet communautaire offre une meilleure valeur ajoutée que l’actuel système de protection des brevets en Europe. Le brevet communautaire est le brevet de la dernière chance. Il ne donne pas le droit à l’erreur. Il faut donc prendre le temps nécessaire à une bonne préparation de façon à ne pas avoir à y revenir. Mais dès maintenant, nous devons nous engager avec l’accord de Londres vers un régime de traductions limité pour pouvoir convaincre demain que toutes les entreprises innovantes, non seulement les grands groupes mais aussi la majorité des petits déposants puissent vivre et prospérer avec moins de traduction et des coûts réduits de la sécurité juridique indispensable. Nous devons mettre à l’épreuve l’EPLA, le modèle d’un tribunal supranational constitué de juges spécialisés traitant des actions en contrefaçon, impliquant les partis privées, selon des règles européennes. Pour conclure, je voudrais souligner que nous que l’office européen des brevets reste prêt à coopérer avec les institutions de l’Union européenne, dans toutes leurs dimensions et en particulier avec la Commission et le Parlement européen, auquel j’ai appartenu mes chers collègues et Président. Il s’agit de développer un système fort et opérationnel des brevets pour l’Europe. Ce n’est pas une tâche facile de réformer le droit des brevets en Europe et nous avons ensemble des objectifs communs à servir, à savoir remédier autant que possible et le plus rapidement possible au point faible de l’actuel brevet européen et de préparer le chemin qui mènera au futur, c’est-à-dire au futur système de brevet communautaire. Merci Madame la Présidente.

61-JacquelineMinor-en,01:53:53-01:55:21

Thank you very much M. Pompidou. We now move as planned on the open debate, I say “open” with some caution because in fact we already have twenty requests on the floor. We will take the maximum questions but we only have an hour, so please, please, be brief as possible to allow as many as possible people to speak. If you haven’t given your name to one of my colleague, then someone could go and collect the remaining names. Claudia or? If you haven’t given your name can you keep your hands up for the moment and somebody will take it from you, your name not your hand… The first speaker that I have on my list is M. Kristof Roox, who is a firm lawyer and an IP partner, M. Hugo Leuders speaking on behalf of CompTIA, Dr. Geiger who is the chief manager of the IP strategy of a Venture capitalist Group. M. Roox? Three minutes maximum but if you could make it fast, other people will greatly appreciate it.

62-Kristof ROOX-en, 01:55:21-01:56:45

A lot of relevant comments have already been made. I have a question. Tomorrow, there will be a long awaited judgement of the European court of justice in a patent case. It is pan-European litigation, it is about multinational litigation. And my question is this decision on the EPLA. Maybe the court of justice opens the door for multinational litigation under Brussels’ regulation and this must be of influence and importance for the EPLA.

Mrs Jacqueline MINOR

Ok, that was very short and very interesting. Thank you very much. Hugo Leuders. It might be easier if you could identify where you are in the room so we could turn the camera onto you smiling face.

63-CompTIA-en, 01:56:45-01:58:52

Madam Chairman, it is a great honour and a challenge at the same time for CompTIA to come here and to share some ideas. I will insist on two points here at the end of this exciting discussion here. Now I think these two issues are very much related. The first point is the very strong key we have all hear here with a very few exceptions that we have to go forward with the EPLA. These drawbacks are very much related with the second major point. The second major point is to develop further and to be very creative with many further ideas on all kind of assistant services specialised for assisting SMEs. SMEs have to be supported, the backbone of our industry in Europe. We have further to reduce cost and find additional services as we have in the EPO and the EC with the IP help desk. All these are excellent models, we have to bundle that and make it more effective and then I think we will have an excellent tool for all who see drawbacks in the EPLA approach. This would be my very short summary of the debate we had here. These are the two sights I wanted to insist on, we have to go forward, we have not time anymore, if we wait thirty years, I we also will be Chinese and the problem of the language regime would be solved.

64-EVCA-en, 01:58:52-02:00:30

Thank you Madame Chair. My name is Bernd Geiger, Triangle, on behalf of the European Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (EVCA). Why is EVCA a stakeholder in the future of patents in Europe? Venture Capital financed SMEs represent the most innovative and fastest growing companies among all SMEs. These companies on average spend 6 times more on R&D activities per employee than the 500 largest EU companies. The influence of VC-backed SMEs on the economy has been shown in the United States and the driving impact to employment is indisputable. The marginal benefit of patents to VC-backed SMEs is enormous compared to large companies as most of the time, SMEs compete solely on their technological basis. Today, fast internationally growing European VC-backed companies suffer significant competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis their US peers and counterparts: Whereas inventions of the US VC-backed companies are very well protected on their home turf, and the protection reasonably priced, predictable, and effective, it is quite the opposite in Europe. To overcome these competitive disadvantages, we need in Europe: a unified patent regime comparable to the US and Japan and active measures to increase public awareness of the importance of patents, in order to compete in a global world. Thank you.

65-EPI-en, 02:00:30-02:03:22

Thank you Madam Chairman. As a member of the EPI, I represent the European patent attorneys in 31 member states. We broadly heard that at least eleven members of the EPI represented different views. EPI feels that there is there is no realistic prospect for acceptable Community regulation though we would want one. So we think efforts should not be expand on it. We saw that the London agreement is an optional agreement. On that basis, the majority of the EPI members are in favour of it but not all. Similarly, EPLA is an option and the majority of the EPI members are in favour of it. We do see problems in the EPLA as it regards cost which has been raised by a number of parties. I think some of the fears came from the estimations made by the EPO. I think one of the problems is the outlay including every possible costs underestimated. National judges are paid by national governments, so why the judges of the EPLA shouldn’t also by paid by the member states governments, that would reduce the costs significantly. The other problem that we have on EPLA is on representation. We feel that European patent attorneys should be allowed full representation rights. We think it should also reduce the costs and so we think there should be great work to make sure that costs are not bound. I think one practical point related to the way which EPI went about to produce its response to the questionnaire. As I said we have members in 31 in different countries in Europe knowing there are only 25 countries within the EU so far. We manage to come to up a response to the questionnaire. I was drafted by a German; it was revised by a Spanish, Swiss and a Brit. And what we did was to Take care with everybody’s view and we came up to an agreement which was practical and pragmatic. These two words have been used a lot today, practical and pragmatic, that’s what we want, a pragmatic and practical solution to the problems that have been raised up. And the majority of the EPI members regarding the London agreement and the EPLA feel it is the right way. Thank you very much.

66-AEI-fr, 02:03:22-02:07:09

67-AICIPI-en, 02:07:09-02:09:00

On behalf of this association, whose membership is composed of industrial property experts working in-house in industry or research institutions in Italy, I would like to thank the organizers for the opportunity of bringing our contribute to the debate. As expressed also in our reply to the Questionnaire, AICIPI considers it to be important to have in Europe, in the future, a flexible, affordable and workable Community Patent system with the relative unitary Court system, alongside with the EPC, although integrated by a common Court system (represented by EPLA) and with simplified language provisions according to the London Agreement. EPLA and London Agreement are at reach, as mentioned already several times today, and we cannot miss this opportunity to have them in place as soon as feasible. As to the Community Patent, we see some lines for a future agreement, that on the still controversial issues could be:

1. The Community patent (from filing to grant) a. Filing of the application in any language of the EU b. only one procedural language (English) for the procedure up to grant (patent application published in “the language of the procedure” plus the original language); c. on grant, translation of the claims (at choice and under responsibility of the patentee) in the prescribed national language(s) 2. Legally binding text of the patent: the one in the language of the procedure, but the translated claims are the terms of reference for possibly collecting damages for acts occurred in the area to which a given language pertains 3. Procedural and maintenance fees at the grant stage are abolished or drastically reduced to take into consideration the cost/burden of claim translations for the patentee [all the above without prejudice to the current EPC system, that should continue as it is, with the addition of EPLA and London Agreement]

As to the Court system, it should be to a maximum extent integrated with the EPLA system and should in particular have “technical” judges with strong background in patent matters alongside with “legally trained” ones and “regional chambers” distributed in the EU territory to be closer to the “users” of the system. We see in fact that there is now a chance for progressing the whole “Patent” agenda for the EU, provided both the political/institutional level and the industry/users’ level pragmatically work for an acceptable compromise. The lines suggested above require of the Institutions to accept to deemphasize a lot the “language” issues, while the users/industry should in our view accept that a certain degree of “language complications” will be a fact in EU for quite some more time and find a way to live with it.... While the London Agreement is now “overdue” and we expect it to enter into force as soon as possible, we believe that it might be optimal for the EPLA and the Community patent system to proceed in parallel but only if a Community system, having the unanimous consent of all EU Countries, e.g. along the lines outlined above, is rapidly devised and unanimously approved, otherwise, EPLA should proceed at a speedy pace, with no further delays.

68-AGESORPI-en,02:09:00-02:12:15

AGESORPI intervention

69-?-en,02:12:15-02:16:24

70-SPAA-en,02:16:24-02:20:03

71-EPOStaffUnion-fr,02:20:03-02:21:50

72-KoninklijkePhilipsElectronics-en,02:21:50-02:24:30

Koninklijke Philips Electronics intervention

73-PierreRoger-fr,02:24:30-02:27:39

Pierre Roger intervention

74-MarcSchultz-en,02:27:39-02:30:30

Thank you very much.

My name is Marc Schultz. I am founder and CEO of a SME in Germany. We have been active in the development for about ten years and I am additionally representing 600 SMEs which have joined our position against software patenting. I have four questions. The first: The structure of the technical board of Appeal introduces software patents. According to the EPLA would be same judges to qualify for centralised patent court? Second: We are claimed today that the EPLA reduced the litigation costs. Why does the EPO say the opposite? Third: Because of the lack of SMEs’ participation in the consultation, the European Commission launched after the deadline another secret consultation targeting only SMEs that own patents. One phone call to the Euro Info Centre (EIC) of Brussels showed that this Centre found these SMEs holding patents with the help of a patent lawyer desk. Of targeting SMEs that own patents hired the results of the consultation Four. SMEs were mentioned very often today and I know two other companies that apply in another panel. Why those SMEs have been excluded from the panel? Thank you very much.

Mrs Jacqueline MINOR

I don’t want to spend time answering questions, once more I am not a defender of the European Commission. Consultation about SMEs was not secret, it was carried up transparently and the results are listed in the document. Secondly, if I may say so, we did not target only SMEs holding patents. We targeted SMEs which might have something to say. So we ask those which have patents, those which consider to have patents, those which have been targeted by patents, that is to say those which do not own patents but have been the victim of infringement pleading. We did our best to balance the views represented in the written replies. As I said, the only way to correct your view is to publish – that we intend to do – in extensio all the written replies. But my concern is that the speakers today reflected clearly the balanced replies. Then, we do not have much time to carry on. So I will ask the next speaker M. [...]

75-ZVEI-en,02:30:30-02:34:05

76-IBA-en,02:34:05-02:35:16

IBA intervention

77-IFIA-en,02:35:16-02:37:16

IFIA intervention

78-OpenForumEurope-en,02:37:16-02:39:49

OpenForum Europe intervention

79-CNCPIF-fr,02:39:49-02:43:39

CNCPIF intervention

80-Alcatel-en,02:43:39-02:46:23

81-FSFE-en,02:46:23-02:47:54

Hello, my name is Ciaran O'Riordan, from the FSFE. Last July, the European Parliament rejected the proposal to codify EPO practice regarding software patents and here we are one year later in a room full of businessmen and lawyer discussing on the proposal to codify EPO practice. Without being directly elected representing representatives people here are discussing on the public interest, it seems not really democratic. Business is a part of the EU but also are people. I'm not fundamentally against a community-wide patent. The problem is in the implementation. Separation of executive and judiciary is one of the cornerstone of European democracy. The EPO is out of control but instead of being reined in, it is being given control of the judiciary. Software is a specific production and a patent affect the industry definitely. Software can be made on proprietary model. But software can also be made on distribution like cars but it can also be made and distributed in many other models. For this reason, patents affect software differently. Patents are incompatible with many models used by software SMEs as mentioned earlier today. Patents are also incompatible with many models used by Free Software. This is not just about cost, so it doesn't matter if the costs are doubled or halved. Free software is software can be examined, modified and re-published by anyone. Users are able to help themselves and help each other. So, software is an area tending to monopolies. And just this morning the European Commission felt the need to invite a company generating two hundred eighty million euro. Software is the only sector requiring the intervention by the European Commission Free Software such as the GNU/Linux operating system should not be stiffled because a litigation problem was solved carelessly. Thank you.

82-EPLA-en,02:47:54-02:49:33

83-Michelin-en,02:49:33-02:52:20

84-CharlieMcCreevy-en,02:52:20-03:04:52

Ladies and Gentlemen, Throughout the world, patent authorities have a difficult role. On the one hand, they have to encourage everyone, individuals and companies alike, to innovate and provide them with the opportunity to patent and then market their invention with the certainty of securing a fair return on their investment. On the other hand, they have to ensure that patents are only granted to inventions which are worthy of this temporary monopoly. They must not over-step the line beyond which innovation is stifled rather than promoted. This is not an easy task. And there are many different opinions on how best to achieve the right balance! The consultation launched by DG Internal Market in January raised a number of issues for debate. I am delighted that our initiative has met with an unprecedented level of interest among all groups of stakeholders. We received a huge number of replies, which will be vital in helping us to decide on the way forward. But our task is all the more difficult as patents policy is decided in a number of independent fora, thus giving many of you a headache and doing European business no favours. Despite repeated calls for improvement, little progress has been made in any of these fora over recent years. This is why we launched this broad consultation, with the aim of collecting your views on what would be the most effective and efficient manner of taking the patent system in Europe forward in the near future. Last year we also launched a study on patents' value. The aim of the study is to complement the result of the consultation by obtaining a clearer view on the economical and social value of patents for society in Europe. We have planned these two actions since we want to make sure that any possible initiative in the field of patents meets with your needs.

In an increasingly global economy, Europe needs to play to its strengths. Building on excellence in education and research, it must deploy its creativity and inventiveness in the search for new processes, products and business models which will assist it in maintaining its competitive edge over the fast-growing emerging economies. The right regulatory framework, one which stimulates and rewards innovation, is an important element in the mix. Therefore we need to be sure that we frame our rules carefully and make them work for the benefit of all the players. Of equal importance, of course, is the correct application of the rules – and the legal certainty this brings. Industrial property protection was identified as the first of seven major initiatives to be undertaken as part of the Commission's new industrial policy, an indication of the importance the Commission attaches to the subject. Judging by the level of attention that this consultation has prompted we are not alone in this belief. Over the coming year, I intend to accord particular attention to IPR and I will intensify my efforts to improve the industrial property environment in Europe. Our priorities become even more comprehensible with the results we obtained with the patent value study. As Professor Gambardella will shortly tell you, we have learnt some very interesting things. In particular, one significant issue is the creation of new businesses. It seems that many start-ups adopt business models that use patents as core assets. Often a patent is the key element around which a start-up organizes its entire business. Furthermore, an environment characterized by strong intellectual property rights, seems to influence in a positive manner the creation of new companies. New businesses are more likely to start-up because they can specialize in developing the technology and selling it to other firms, without incurring the much higher costs and risks of investing in the large scale assets for production and commercialisation. Another important finding is the concept of “sleeping” patents. As you are aware, sleeping patents are unused patents that are simply left unexploited by the patent holder. If we want to improve the rate of utilization of patents, sleeping patents are our natural goal. Apparently, small firms use 80% of their patents, whereas large firms use slightly less than 60% of their patents. Since large firms hold almost three-quarters of all the patents, in absolute terms their sleeping patents make up a significant reserve of technologies that could be potentially exploited possibly by other parties. Therefore, we should pay particular attention to this area if we want to improve the patent system in Europe.

Back to the consultation, I am of course aware that important decisions will have to be taken on several difficult and controversial subjects. It is now apparent that our priorities must focus on: • Simplifying the structure and procedures for patent grant and litigation; • Decreasing the cost of obtaining a patent, in particular with regard to smaller businesses; and • Last but not least, maintaining and improving the quality of patents. There is still widespread support from industry for a Community Patent – but not for the compromise which is stuck on the table of the Council at the moment. There are hot debates about the number of languages patents should be translated into and the regional distribution of courts. My feeling is that businessmen, faced with a 21st century global economy, scratch their heads in disbelief when they see us stuck in these discussions. A vast majority of you – stakeholders – do not find the proposed language regime, as well as the jurisdictional arrangements, satisfactory. You do not want a Community Patent that does not offer clear advantages over the existing system. What you want is a cheaper and more reliable patent system. I have already said that I will go for one big, last push on the Community Patent. I still have to decide when the time is ripe. The consultation also showed that there is clear support for the London Protocol since it would make the existing European patent system more attractive in terms of cost and efficiency. Even though the Protocol has yet to be ratified by France in order to enter into force, there seem to have been a couple of promising signs coming from Paris lately in favour of the Protocol. The European Patent Litigation Agreement is seen as a promising route towards more unitary jurisdiction. Therefore, I will ask my services to explore the possibilities of moving this project forward. However, you should be aware that there are some institutional hurdles to be tackled if the Community is to become involved in the EPLA initiative. Furthermore, stakeholders differ on the degree of centralisation or the nature of the local first instance courts. These views seem to depend on the differing assessments of the costs and benefits involved with more or less centralisation. It remains to be seen how we can best guarantee simplicity, proximity and accessibility with uniformity of interpretation and legal certainty. Although the subject was not at the heart of my consultation, the quality of patents in Europe, particularly in new technology sectors, is of paramount importance to the users of the system. Any initiative aiming at reduction of patenting costs must be accompanied by patent quality enhancing solutions. We must make sure that patent applications are properly searched and examined which is an increasing challenge as technology development gears up everyday. Also, any future jurisdictional arrangement must contain safeguards against Community-wide or even larger enforcement of low quality patents, including protection against the destructive practices of "patent trolls", especially dangerous for the ICT industry. Last, but certainly not least, we must make sure that small and medium enterprises, the backbone of European economy, have access to the patent system, unhindered by complex procedures and high costs. In that respect, we will look carefully into the idea that many SMEs put forward in their contributions: an alternative dispute resolution system, in the form of mediation or arbitration, for certain patent cases. Having said all that, there are also areas where stakeholders did not express much enthusiasm for Community involvement. We will therefore refrain from exploring initiatives for further harmonisation of patent law, beyond what is already de facto achieved by the European Patent Convention. Also, as I said before, there will be no new initiative in the area of the computer-implemented inventions during my term as Commissioner. The vote and the far-reaching debate which preceded it demonstrated, in my opinion, that the time is not ripe for a meaningful piece of legislation to be adopted on this issue.

This conference marks the formal end of a very fruitful consultation period. On the basis of today's hearing and of the 2515 contributions we received, we will consider the best way forward and what we can best do to provide you with a sound patent system. The next step, of course, is to announce the options that the Commission intends to pursue as a result of this exercise. I don't expect to keep you waiting too long – I hope we will have set a course by the end of the year. But I think we have already begun our journey towards our destination. What we need is in multi-stranded package and today’s discussion has been yet another step towards teasing out those strands. In order to overcome very complex political issues and with a view to promoting common European interests, it will be necessary to harness our efforts. The Commission, the Union, cannot do this alone. But I will endeavour to ensure that the policy the Commission adopts in response to the consultation responds as comprehensively as possible to the needs of all those who have an interest in the patent system. Before I bid you good evening, I would like to thank all of you for coming here today, many of you having flown in from all corners of Europe, and to wish you, after all your hard work, a relaxing and enjoyable summer. I thank you again for your contribution.