EplaAmends061012En

Resolution on Future of Patent Policy in Europe: Analysis of Amendments

-> [ français ] [ Backgrounds on EPLA | FFII EPLA analysis ]


On Thursday October 12, the European Parliament will vote at a mini-plenary in Brussels on three different proposals for a resolution on "future patent policy in Europe", including a position on European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA). A "compromise" motion filled by EPP, ALDE and PES is likely to win with a high margin. According to this foul compromise, the parliament basically supports the EPLA and asks for the EU to "join the EPC", but calls for "significant improvements" to the current EPLA text. A set of 4 amendments turns the foul compromise into a resolution that is still not perfect but worth supporting. These amendments have been filed by a cross-partisan group of 37 !MEPs/, spear-headed by Zverina (EPP Czech), Duff (ALDE UK) and Savary (PES France). EPP, PSE, GUE and Greens have also filed amendments. This documents provides voting recommandations for all amendments./


Voting Recommandations for Amendments

amend #

topic

source

advice

comment

8

Deletion of "joining Munich Convention"

Group of MEPs

++

"Joining the EPC" contradicts the idea of "discussion" and "revision". "Joining the EPC" is one of the several courses of action that could be taken as a result of the discussion. Other options include adoption of the EPC by the Community. The proposal is to explore and discuss these options, not to jump to conclusions and take action.

7

Improvement of EPLA addressing democratic control, judicial independence, litigation costs, and Rules of Procedure

Group of MEPs

++

The call for "significant improvement" is unclear as long as the motion does not point to any problems which might need to be addressed.

1=2

Impact assessment addressing concerns about patent quality, governance of the patent system, judicial independence and litigation costs

PSE, EPP

0

Concerns are taken out of the context of "significant improvements of the EPLA text" and moved into that of the routine impact assessment, i.e. to a stage when the decisions are already taken.

5

Opinion of ECJ

Greens

++

We need legal certainty, which can be only assured by an ECJ decision.

10

Opinion of ECJ

Group of MEPs

+

Same as am #6 which is stronger, by asking for transparency and democracy

4=6

Impact assessment of the EPLA before participating in further discussions

GUE, Greens

+

Improve am #1=2 by conditioning any discussion on EPLA to an impact assessment

3=9

Recital about concerns on undesirable patents and lack of democratic control

GUE, Group of MEPs

+

The call for "significant improvements" in article 1 needs a basis in the recitals.

Text of the inter-groups Resolution

Detailed Analysis of Amendments

Berger (PSE) and Lehne (EPP) Amendments

GUE Amendments

Greens Amendments

Group of MEPs Amendments

Hosting sponsored by Netgate and Init Seven AG