29/05/2008 (Agence Europe) - On 29 May, Latvia became the 15th member state of the EU to complete the parliamentary ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty. (H.B.)
Community patent. The Slovenian presidency has produced a compromise proposal on the Community patent, which integrates new ideas on the language regime and income sharing generated from payments for maintaining the future patent in force (EUROPE 9623).
The Slovenian presidency is proposing that the demands for Community patents are submitted in three official languages (German, English, French) at the European Patents Office (EPO). A company from a given member state whose official language is not one of the three official languages can, nonetheless, request its own language at the EPO. It will be up to the EPO to translate the request in one of the three official EPO languages. From the submission of the request, complete translations of the Community patent should also be made available. Made automatically by a centralised European level system, they will have no legal value. Translations of European patents are currently seldom consulted by stakeholders because they are only available after a long delay. The Slovenian presidency is also proposing that the Community patent, granted in one of the EP languages of procedure, be valid for all the EU. In the event of litigation on a Community patent, the patent holder will be obliged to provide the other party, if necessary (and at their own cost), with a complete translation of the patent in the official language of the member state where the other party is established or in the official language of the country where the infringement has been observed. Currently, less than 1% of European patents are subject to legal litigation.
Discussed at a level of national experts, these proposals have not found much favour with a number of delegations, Spain at the head of them. Noting an “enormous step backwards”, Spain is opposed to the regime proposed and above all to automatic translations, which, it states, is a pale compensation for the lack of legal validity of translations. Italy and Greece, who made a specific written proposal, are not enthusiastic either. Finland, Hungary and Lithuania also expressed reservation. Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK, however, support the suggestions floated by the Slovenian EU Presidency. In 2004, the proposal on the table of the ministers was to make the translation of patents compulsory into all official EU languages.
On the repartition of fees paid by right holders to continue to benefit from the protection of the future Community patent, the Slovenian Presidency takes up the idea whereby the amount of fees must be equivalent to maintaining the validity of a European patent in five or six member states. Half of these charges will go to the EPO, and the other half will be shared out between the national patents offices according to a complex repartition system. This system would include demographic and linguistic criteria as well as the number of patent requests made in a member state. The Slovenian Presidency's idea is two-fold: - to reassure member states wishing to ensure their national office has sufficient revenue, and grant member states financial incentive when their patent activity is low so that they accept the regime proposed more easily. The UK is concerned about the impact that these proposals will have on the EPO's financial viability. Hungary considers that, for calculating fees, the average number of countries covered should be higher than that proposed by the Slovenian Presidency. Greece and Finland also spoke of their great distrust towards these proposals.
European judicial authority. At this stage, discussions on the creation of a European judicial authority for settling litigation have not included two essential elements: the nature of the system and its linguistic system (EUROPE 9642). They focus, for example on the make up of the legal officials at the Court of First Instance (nationality and remit of the judges) and the need to establish divisions in each member state. Germany wants judges to have the nationality of the member state where local divisions have been created in an effort to maintain its own system which is reputed to be the most effective in Europe. Supported by Denmark and Sweden, it is also in favour of the participation of judges who are technically competent. Sweden is opposed to legal divisions in all member states. (M.B.)