The language of patents

Nuala Moran, Managing Editor, Science|Business

As we report elsewhere, the Advocate General at the European Court of Justice, Juliane Kokott has concluded that the proposed unified patent court – in which disputes relating to the Single European Patent would be litigated – is incompatible with the EU treaties. Among her reasons: the exclusive use of English, French and German would discriminate against defendants who do not speak or work in one of these languages.

It may be that the European Court of Justice will reach a different conclusion when it formally delivers its opinion later this year. But even if it does, Kokott’s view of the language regime provides grounds for resistance and stalling from countries including Spain, Italy and Poland, which are against the language proposals.

Kokott’s conclusions are also hugely awkward and embarrassing for the European Commission, since the creation of the Single European Patent underpins the new EU2020 Innovation Strategy, due to be published in September.

And as the Belgian government noted in the prospectus setting out its ambitions for its Presidency of the EU, a Single European Patent is needed now, more than ever.

Obviously, all patent holders must be given equal rights to protect their intellectual property. The question is, would a court that operated in every official language of the EU provide this?

Despite their shortcomings, the main national patent systems in Europe do at least function – a unified patent court required to debate the finer points of patents claims in all the EU languages, could not.

In this context, languages should be viewed as tools rather than as cultural artefacts. Without a streamlined language regime there is little to be gained from a unified patent court and a Single European Patent. Limiting the number of languages used is not a form of cultural domination, but a pragmatic means to the important end of improving Europe’s competitiveness for all its people, of whatever tongue.