Brussels, 10/07/2012 (Agence Europe) - Make use of the summer break to find possible solutions and maybe finally resolve the issue of the European patent. That was the option taken by the European Parliament (EP) legal affairs committee on Tuesday morning when it debated the latest twist in the ongoing patent saga: the compromise thrashed out by heads of state and government on 29 June on where to locate the new patents court (to be shared by three cities), a compromise that is far from the deal forged previously between the EP and the Council.
This latest turn of events, an affront in the view of the MEPs on the committee, will probably further delay resolution of the issue of the European single patent, that has been under discussion for more than 30 years and is supposed to improve the competitiveness of EU businesses. The quarrel among the three cities - Paris, Munich and London - which were in the running to host the patent court cost the EU six more months and was settled on 29 June, with Paris becoming the main seat and specialised divisions being set up in London and Munich, after UK demands were met for three references to the EU Court of Justice to be removed from the regulation setting up the patent, on which the EP has co-decision powers.
On Tuesday morning, rapporteur Bernhard Rapkay (S&D, Germany) slammed a decision and a procedure that he saw as unlawful. He said that the removal of the three articles had been found by the EP legal department not to comply with European law and to leave the legal basis open to challenge. Rapkay, unhappy at the amount of time it had taken for the UK, France and Germany to come to agreement, also restated his position and “it will be the Council that has to back-peddle”. He said he had no intention of coming back from holiday with new avenues for negotiation: “Council will have to accept what had already been agreed”.
Within the committee, others were more prepared to accept the compromise. Cecilia Wikström (ALDE, Sweden), for example, while regretting the horse-trading between the three countries, called on her colleagues to find a solution as quickly as possible. This position was not, however, fully shared by the committee, most of her colleagues taking a line closer to that of the rapporteur. Rapkay was scathing of the time taken, stating that the delay in bringing the single patent on stream was “clearly the fault of the Council”, which had delayed it and seemed even, he suggested, not to want it. (SP/transl.rt)