The European Commission is reviving a push for a common
patent policy by asking for input of ideas from industry and stakeholders - a
move that would renew a fierce debate that has spanned more than three decades.
The latest consultation will be focusing on three issues:
the Community Patent; how the current patent system in
Creating a Community Patent has long been debated within the
European Union. It would let individuals and companies obtain a unitary patent
throughout the EU – and get it enforced. At present, patents can be filed with
the Munich-based European Patent Office – but they amount to a bundle of
nationally-enforceable patents in designated states. That’s expensive, as it
means patent cases have to be fought country-by-country rather than in one
EU-wide forum.
The absence of a functioning EU-wide patent regime is one of
the biggest complaints of business leaders in
Work on a Community Patent started in the 1970s, but the
resulting 1975 Community Patent Convention (CPC) was a failure. It was not
ratified by enough EU member-states to take effect. In 1989 the commission
tried unsuccessfully to revive the issue, with an amended version of the
Community Patent Convention. It tried yet again with a 2003 plan for a
Community Patent Regulation, or CPR. It provided that a patent application
could be filed in only one language (English, French or German) and would be
handled with and examined by the European Patent Office. However, the patent
would not be enforceable against an entity until it is provided with a copy of
it in its own national language. The Community Patent Regulation would also
establish a court holding exclusive jurisdiction to invalidate issued patents;
thus, a Community Patent's validity will be the same in all EU member states.
A political agreement to create the Community Patent was
reached on March 3, 2003. However, one year later in March 2004 under the Irish
presidency, the EU’s ruling Council deadlocked again on the details. In
particular, the time delays for translating the authentic text of the claims in
case of an infringement remained problematic issues throughout discussions.