Brussels, 29/07/2008 (Agence Europe) - The French Presidency is continuing discussions on a Community patent and a European court for settling patent disputes (see EUROPE 9671). The intention is to make simultaneous progress on these two key issues for improving the European patents system.
Community patent. In July, delegations were able to give their thoughts on the draft amended regulation setting up the Community patent that was presented at the end of May by the Slovenian Presidency. Discussion centred mainly on the role of national intellectual property offices. The draft regulation limits the role of these offices, allowing only the European Patent Office (EPO), the inter-governmental organisation which will be responsible for granting patents, to draw up search reports. The proposal on the Council table in 2004, which serves as the reference point for discussion, gave national offices wider competence in this area. Germany backs this new limitation, while other member states, which have small national patent offices, see a threat that the Community patent could develop at the expense of their own national patent.
Questions over language and sharing the annual fees needed to keep the Community patent in force did not, however, progress. Spain and Italy still oppose translations of the future patent having no legal status. Another matter to which there was no response was the possible granting of patents before the EU joins the EPO. Under the terms of the draft regulation, the first patents will be granted when the EU joins the EPO. This procedure, which will require amendment of the 1973 European Patent Convention, will, however, take several years.
European court. Member states also discussed the future European court that will be responsible for settling patent disputes (see EUROPE 9642). The proposal presented jointly by Slovenia and France at the end of June sets out inter alia arrangements on the composition of this court (number, nationalities and legal/technical competences of the judges). With regard to applicable language, it re-introduces the need for agreement between the two parties that the language used during a procedure is the same as the one used in the patent, generally English, and not the official language of the member state in which the court is set up. (M.B./transl.rt)