Brussels, 04/12/2006 (Agence Europe) - The debate on innovation strategy reopened the eternal divisions in EU Member States about how to improve protection of intellectual property rights (IPR), particularly patents, during the Competitiveness Council on Monday 4 December. All the different delegations agreed on the need to simplify the system in an effort to reduce costs to enterprise but were opposed on how to reach this objective. Mauri Pekkarinen, the Finnish minister for trade and industry told the press that “on this dossier, ideas are different and we are perhaps guilty of the sin of excessive ambition”. The Commission decided to postpone till 2007 the presentation of its European strategy in this field, initially planned for the end of this year.
During the debate, Italy expressed a preference for a “Community solution” while recognising that “there are also other completely viable solutions”. In the area of settling patent litigation, it proposed a solution based at “a decentralised level with a centralised level of appeal”. France mentioned its recent proposal for conferring the European Court of Justice with competency in litigation resolution, insofar as “the Community framework will give greater legal security and political legitimacy” (EUROPE 9314).
France warned that the “EPLA project is not expected to get the support of a sufficient number of Member States”. Highlighting the “linguistic non-discrimination”, Spain supported the French initiative. Cyprus underlined “coherency” of a solution based on a “Community system”. The Irish minister said that they should be based on “EU legislation” if not, there would be “Constitutional difficulties for our country”.
Portugal is in favour of implementing a “Community patent” but “not at any price”: legal security should be ensured and linguistic discrimination avoided. If there is not solution concerning the Community patent, Belgium is planning on a “reinforced cooperation proposal” which will take into account. Several delegations called for a solution, even if it is only a temporary one, by supporting the two international agreements promoted on an inter-governmental basis by the European Patents Office (EPO).
The Slovenian minister declared that the “proposals in the EPLA are completely justified”. The agreement on European patent litigation agreement (EPLA) includes implementation of a network of national courts linked to a European court of appeal in charge of interpreting patent law, which is an autonomous body. Slovenia ratified the London Protocol, an international agreement which aims to reduce demands regarding patent translation. Austria said that it is possible to “build on the basis of the EPLA”. The Netherlands supported “rapid improvement” of the patents system and said that it was necessary to “take into account the EPLA initiative”. Poland highlighted the London Protocol and the EPLA even if these two agreements constitute “temporary solutions” and will not be signed by all Member States. the United Kingdom called for them to not ignore the appeal from enterprise for a short term solution. It pointed out that the objective of a “single patent, that did was cost effect and ensured legal security” would take time and came out in favour of a “temporary solution based on the EPLA”.
Germany, which will be taking over the presidency of the Council of the EU in the first half of 2007, summarised the situation: everyone want to improve and simplify the existing system, the problem is one of agreeing on how to get there. Germany highlighted the difficulties if putting the French initiative in place: the transfer of competency to the European Court of Justice would need amendments to the treaties, which would take time and the Luxembourg Court's work load was already at a maximum level. It thought that on the Community patent they would have to start from scratch and get another proposal. The European Commissioner for the internal market Charlie McCreevy declared that he got the impression of “déja vu” because they had already been talking about it for twenty years. But asked what difference would another year make (a Eurovision song contest song). (mb)