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.

    97/144 page 65
    I April 1998] [Continued Fees for Community patents 12. The Green Paper supposes that the European Patent Office should be in charge of the technical operation of the Community patent system as is already established in the Convention. It also supposes that the procedural fees levied for European patents will likewise apply to Community patents and that the designation fee for a Community patent would be capped so that it would not exceed the cost of designating a limited number of member states. Under the Community Patent Convention renewal fees to keep a Community patent in force are paid directly to the European Patent Office which then distributes a portion of this income among the states party to the Convention. The Green Paper indicates that if the Community patent system were to come into force as the result of a Community Regulation, the body in charge of the Community patent system should retain all the different fees paid by users and the amount of these fees should be such as to balance the budget of this body. With a view to reducing the cost further to users, the Green Paper also suggests that the patent owner might have the option of paying renewal fees for some member states only and so waiving the rights in the patent in the other member states. The Commission asks for views on these suggestions for making the Community patent system cheaper for users. Links between the Community patent and the European patent 13. The Green Paper recognises a continued role for the European patent, particularly as the Community gets bigger and it becomes ever more difficult for patent applicants to assess the need for the wide geographical coverage of a Community patent, at least at an early stage in the application process. The Commission therefore seeks views on the necessity of a link between the Community patent and the European patent, which would allow conversion from one to the other at any time during the application process. Harmonisation of the right based on prior use or possession 14. When the Agreement relating to Community Patents was signed in 1989 the signatory states resolved to revise the Agreement to cater for anyone who has used or possessed an invention which is the subject of a Community patent before the patent was applied for. To date there has been no action on this matter and the Green Paper asks if such action is necessary. FURTHER HARMONISATION OF PATENT LAW AT COMMUNITY LEVEL The patentability of computer programs and software-related inventions 15. Under the European Patent Convention and the national laws of member states computer programs as such are not patentable but the case law has developed (not wholly consistently) so that software-based inventions that constitute technical solutions to technical problems are patentable. The Green Paper asks whether the differences between judicial precedents in the member states are causing problems and whether the exclusion of computer programs from patentability should be maintained. Employees’ inventions 16. The rules governing the rights of employees in the inventions they make during the course of their employment differ widely between member states. The only common thread is that if an invention is made in the course of the employee’s normal duties under his employment contract, any resulting patent belongs to the employer. The Green Paper asks if the differences that exist are such as to justify harmonisation. FORMALITIES 17. The Green Paper recognises that the different formal requirements such as regards forms to be filled in, time limits to be observed and the format of documents to be supplied, require a detailed knowledge of each national system. However, the Paper acknowledges the aim of the World Intellectual Property Organisation to harmonise requirements of this sort and questions the need for Community action in this area. Usk OF PATENT AGENTS 18. Presently applicants or their representatives are not usually allowed to deal direct from their home member state with the patent office of another member state without having an address for service in that member state. Thus, a single representative domiciled in one member state cannot act for his client in all matters directly with the patent offices of other member states. In some but not all circumstances this is in accord with the fundamental Treaty principle on the freedom to provide services and the Green Paper asks whether clarification is necessary.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3