Brussels, 04/12/2009 (Agence Europe) - On Friday 4 December, EU economy ministers reached partial political agreement by qualified majority on the draft regulation setting up a European Union patent (this designation replacing the Community patent). The issue of language, which has deadlocked discussions for years, refuses to go away. A unanimous decision will be arrived at, perhaps in 2010, on the basis of a specific legislative proposal from the European Commission. Definitive adoption of the legislative package will depend on the opinion of the European Court of Justice on whether the new European patents system is compatible with the Lisbon Treaty. A further imponderable is the attitude that the European Parliament, which is no a joint legislator on this matter, will strike.
“I am very pleased that the Council has adopted this general approach on the draft regulation on the EU patent and conclusions on the court” responsible for settling patent disputes, said Swedish Trade Minister Ewa Björling. It was, she said, “an important breakthrough” in attempts to reach a definitive agreement on an enhanced patent system in Europe, and she hailed member states' “constructive attitude”. She was optimistic that, with the new proposals on the linguistic regime for the EU patent (subject to the Council unanimity rule) and the opinion of the Court of Justice, everything would be tied up within a year. “This is good news for companies and citizens,” said European Industry Commissioner Günter Verheugen, who was attending his last Council meeting on Friday. He said that the arrangements in this new system met the expectations of business in terms of cost and legal security.
But why was there more reason to be optimistic today when the language issue had not been decided? According to Verheugen, the “two-phase strategy” being followed was: - first, settle all the fundamental problems with the general approach reached on Friday; - then specify and tackle the language problem, which was more a matter of national “prestige”, he suggested. “It is a happy coincidence that the work will be completed under Spanish Presidency,” Verheugen said ironically. Spain, which will hold the EU Presidency in the first half of next year, has consistently refused to accept that Spanish translations of a patent should have no legal value.
Ministers adopted conclusions on improving the European patents system. In addition to the creation of an EU patent, a court competent to settle patent disputes will be put in place (see EUROPE 10031). Ministers amended the conclusions on one point. Italy and Spain got a stronger probability that the provisions related to the jurisdiction system contained in the conclusions may be amended in the light of the Court's opinion. This amendment excepted, Belgium, France, Germany and the United Kingdom let it be known that drafting these conclusions had already required sufficient effort. Thus, Denmark did not receive backing in its attempt to beef up the paragraph giving the Council power to decide on the level of fees to be paid to the European Patent Office (EPO) for renewal of patents and how the money thus generated should be distributed. Denmark will make a statement to be appended to the Council's general approach.
The nascent patents court system will be competent to hear claims for revocation and infringements of the protection afforded by the patent. Its Court of First Instance will be made up of local or regional chambers, with, above these, a central division, then there will be a court of appeal, dealing exclusively with appeals against first instance rulings. In their conclusions, ministers speak of the linguistic regime applicable in the new court system. The language(s) used in a local chamber “should, in general,” be that/those of the member states of the local chamber, with countries able to designate one or more official EPO language(s). The language of the central division “should” be that of the patent. In the court of appeal, the language used “should” be the one used in first instance. (M.B./transl.rt)