The Community patent and the patent system in Europe, with evidence / House of Lords, Select committee on the European Communities.

  • Great Britain. Parliment. House of Lords. Select Committee on the European Communities.
Date:
1998
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: The Community patent and the patent system in Europe, with evidence / House of Lords, Select committee on the European Communities. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    101/144 (page 69)
    1 April 1998] [Continued LITIGATION 10. The Green paper suggests that infringement actions may be taken to national Courts, however most such actions are accompanied by a counter action to revoke the patent. The Green Paper suggests that such revocation actions should be dealt with centrally at first instance by the EPO, and, on appeal, to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities. 11. Such a splitting of responsibility will involve inefficiencies and delays which will inconvenience both parties to a dispute and are likely to involve significant costs in presenting cases in different Courts. Ahead of concrete proposals, it is not possible to quantify such effects. EXTENT OF CONSULTATION 12. Since the Commission’s own deadline for comments is 7 November, consultees have not yet considered the cost implications of the Green Paper. It should be remembered that the Green Paper is only seeking views. In the United Kingdom members of the Government’s Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property (list of members attached) have been invited to respond directly to the Commission and will also meet to give its views on matters raised in the Green Paper to officials of the Patent Office. In addition, United Kingdom companies with a significant interest in seeking patent protection in Europe, will be invited to respond to the Green Paper. EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES 13. It is likely that few SME’s need EU-wide patent protection, and if they do require protection outside the UK it is unlikely that they will require protection in all member states. Concern has been expressed that national patent regimes should continue to flourish since this is where SME’s often seek protection. OTHER MEASURES IN THE GREEN PAPER (A) Employee inventions: 14. The Green Paper acknowledges that inventions made by employees in the normal course of their employment belong to the employer. This is the present system in the UK though the 1977 Patent Act provides for employees to be compensated for inventions of outstanding benefit to the employer. However, if a proposal for adopting a system such as that used in Germany were to emerge (whereby, in some circumstances, there is statutory provision for compensation to be paid to the employee and an obligation to exploit an invention) the additional costs to employers for paying out such compensation and for taking out additional patents to protect their position (whether national or European) could be large and there might also be implications for UK innovation policy. (B) Software inventions 15. It is not clear at present whether a proposal to expand the patentability of computer-related inventions will be made. Such a proposal may have significant commercial consequence and compliance costs will be investigated should a proposal be made. EFFECTS ON INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS 16. Since more than 50 per cent of patents applied for at the European Patent Office are from applicants outside Europe, it may be that improving and centralising grant procedures within the EU could be of greater benefit to non-EU companies and increase their competitiveness within Europe. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES 17. The Green paper, being a questionnaire, is seeking views on a range of alternatives.