Brussels, 18/11/2014 (Agence Europe) - The unitary protection conferred by the European patent brings genuine benefits in terms of uniformity and integration. Additionally, the reduced number of languages employed (English, French and German) is appropriate, as it considerably reduces translation costs and better safeguards the principle of legal certainty.
These are, in essence, the conclusions reached on Tuesday 18 November by Advocate General Yves Bot who, for these reasons, recommends that the Court of Justice of the EU dismiss the claims brought by Spain (joined cases C-146/13 and C-147/13) calling for the cancellation of the two regulations governing the implementation of enhanced cooperation in the field of unitary protection, established by the European patent.
Spain notably criticises the two regulations for: - establishing a title issued by the European Patent Office, the official documents of which are not subject to jurisdictional controls; - discrimination, by offering just three languages; - violating the principle of autonomy of EU law, by making their application dependent on the entry into force of the inter-governmental agreement on a unified patent jurisdiction.
The Advocate General found that, contrary to Spain's arguments, the first regulation (unitary effect of the patent) has its purpose, as it means that the patent holder does not have to apply for the patent to be registered in each state which is a party to the convention on the unitary patent and where it wishes to obtain protection, but instead a single procedure is sufficient for the patent to be recognised and protected in all of those states.
Spain's other criticisms are irrelevant, for several reasons. First of all, the Court of Justice of the EU is simply not competent to control the content of the agreement on the unified jurisdiction, as this is an inter-governmental agreement negotiated and signed only by certain member states on the basis of international law.
Lastly, as regards the decision to use just three languages, as stipulated in the regulations, Mr Bot points out that EU law does not contain a principle of equality of languages, that this language regime pursues a legitimate objective and that it is appropriate and proportionate, particularly as regards the legitimate desire to keep translation costs, which can be very high, down to a minimum. Additionally, the choice of these three particular languages is justified, as it “acknowledges the linguistic realities of the patent sector”.
Lastly, the fact that the implementation of the regulations depends on the ratification of the inter-governmental agreement responds to a necessary consistency as, if the participating member states did not ratify the agreement, this would jeopardise the attainment of the Union's harmonisation and uniform protection objectives. Without this agreement, the implication of the regulations would also harm the correct functioning of the unitary patent, the consistency of the case-law and, consequently, legal certainty. (FG and JK)