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.

    49/144 (page 17)
    18 February 1998] [Continued 9.4 In summary, we commend the investigative approach discussed above. Until this has been done, the Chartered Institute considers it impossible to arrive at a proper judgement on the possibilities of integration of the EPC into Community law. 9.5 It should be noted that at present, as stated in para 7.1 above, the Chartered Institute view is that a separate Convention would be preferable to a EU Regulation for effecting harmonisation of substantive law of patent infringement since this will allow the inclusion of non-EU countries for which EPC caters; it would also allow the creation of a Common Appeal Court staffed by a specialist panel of experienced patent judges which is apparently not possible by way of a Regulation. One or more representatives of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents would be available to give oral evidence if requested. A copy of the Chartered Institute’s response to the Green Paper will be forwarded to you when finalised. October 1997 Letter from Licensing Executives Society 1. What is the value of patents to United Kingdom Industry? Patents are of enormous value to industry in the United Kingdom. They provide a very strong incentive for research and innovation, matters which are known to be very important to this government. Through the monopoly protection provided, they give a reward for research and innovation at all levels. Small and medium size enterprises benefit to the same extent as larger industry. In return, a great deal of valuable technical and scientific information is made publicly available. When properly used, searches of patent databases can result in very significant savings in unnecessary repetition of research. Provided the monopoly obtained is carefully delineated, there can be little doubt as to the net benefit of patents for industry both here and elsewhere. 2. What purposes do the patent system in Europe serve for the United Kingdom? Under the present patent systems in Europe, UK organisations can obtain patent protection on a flexible basis. If they want to limit their protection to the UK or any other single European country, they can do so. Equally, if they want to choose a few European countries in which to obtain monopoly protection, that is also possible, either by filling applications through each country’s national patent offices or through the European Patent Office. They can also obtain patent protection throughout Europe using the EPC, at significant cost saving compared to having to file for national patents in each country. So the present systems clearly provide flexibility and potential costs savings. That said, there are unquestionably difficulties with the existing systems, and improvements can and should be made. The EPO has recently significantly reduced its charges, and there is scope for further reduction. Equally, the procedures at the EPO need to be improved: they need to be speeded up, made more rigorous (particularly as regards the way in which evidence is adduced), and made more open. (All of these are issues which have been addressed separately in proposals published recently by Mr Justice Jacob with, we believe, the support of patent judges elsewhere in Europe. We assume you are aware of these proposals, but will be happy to provide further information if that is not the case). 3. What would be the main advantages and disadvantages of patent protection covering the whole Community? The theoretical advantages of patent protection covering the whole Community would include costs saving, both at the application stage and when the patents are being enforced; reduced complexity; and greater consistency in the application of European patent law in the different Member States of the EU. However we stress that these are theoretical benefits. As we will explain in more detail in our submission to the Commission in response to its Green Paper, the Community Patent System as proposed under the Luxembourg Convention would not result in these benefits. Nor would those arrangements as amended in accordance with proposals in the Green Paper. In particular, the system as envisaged in the Green Paper seems to stand no chance of being cost effective, and industry would not have confidence in the enforcement procedures envisaged. As a result, we believe it would simply not be used. Alternative arrangements for translations must be agreed—perhaps adopting a single working language, almost certainly English—and new enforcement procedures need to be considered. 4. Would the Community patent system as devised in the Luxembourg Convention be used if it were to come into effect (i.e., if all necessary ratifications were made)? No. The system as devised in the Luxembourg Convention (as originally drafted or as amended in 1989) is unworkable, for two main reasons: translation costs and problems with the litigation procedure.