Category Archives: Intellectual Property

A uniform system of protection of intellectual property rights, ranging from industrial property to copyright and related rights, constitutes the foundation for creativeness and innovation within the European Union. Respect of the basic principles of the internal market (the free movement of goods and services and free competition) is based on standardisation of intellectual property at European level. Protection of intellectual property is covered by many international conventions, most of which are implemented by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The European Union possesses two important bodies to carry out its mission: the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), which is responsible for the registration of Community trade marks and designs, and the European Patent Office (EPO). The Commission is currently campaigning for the effective introduction of a Community patent system, which would be less costly and more legally effective, as a guarantee of competitiveness for European industry. Finally, the protection of these rights also entails protecting them against piracy, illegal trade and counterfeiting.

Internal Market

Internal Market

Internal Market Contents

  • Internal market: general framework
  • Living and working in the internal market: Free movement of people, asylum and immigration, free movement of workers
  • Single Market for Goods: Free movement of goods, technical harmonisation, product labelling and packaging, consumer safety, pharmaceutical and cosmetic products, chemical products, motor vehicles, construction, external dimension
  • Single market for services: Free movement of services, professional occupations, services of general interest, transport, Information Society, postal services, financial services, banks, insurance, securities markets
  • Single market for capital: Free movement of capital, economic and monetary union, economic and private stakeholders, fiscal aspects, combating fraud, external relations
  • Businesses in the internal market: Company law, public procurement, intellectual property

See also

Living and working in the internal market.
Overviews of European Union: Internal market.
Further information: the Internal Market and Services Directorate-General of the European Commission.

Resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art

Resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Internal market > Businesses in the internal market > Intellectual property

Resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art

Document or Iniciative

Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art.

Summary

Member States’ legislation needs to be harmonised at Community level by introducing a compulsory resale right * for the benefit of the author.

Works of art to which the resale right relates

The resale right applies to works of graphic art or plastic art such as pictures, collages, paintings, drawings, engravings, prints, lithographs, sculptures, tapestries, ceramics, glassware and photographs, provided that:

  • they are made entirely by the artist; or
  • they are copies considered to be original works of art according to professional usage (limited productions or signed works, for example).

The resale right does not apply to original manuscripts of writers or composers.

Subject matter of the resale right

The resale right is normally payable by the seller. Nevertheless, Member States may pass legislation permitting a professional other than the seller to be the sole person responsible for paying the resale right or to share this responsibility with the seller.

Member States may also determine that the resale right does not apply to acts of resale where the seller has acquired the work directly from the author less than three years before that resale and where the resale price does not exceed EUR 10 000.

Term of protection of the resale right

The term of protection is provided for by Directive 93/98/EEC harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights and lasts for a period of 70 years after the death of the author.

To enable them to adapt to these new requirements, Member States which do not apply the resale right on the date on which the Directive enters into force (13 October 2001) are not required, up until 1 January 2010 at the latest, to apply the resale right for the benefit of those entitled under the artist after his or her death. This period can be extended for a further two years if appropriate justification is presented.

Calculation of the resale right

Member States are obliged to set a minimum sale price as of which sales will be subject to the resale right. This minimum sale price may not exceed EUR 3 000.

Artists receive royalties calculated as a percentage of the sale price of their works. The sale price is divided into five portions and the rate of the royalty ranges from 4% to 0.25%, depending on the portion.

However, the total amount of the royalty may not exceed EUR 12 500.

Beneficiaries

The resale right is enjoyed by the author of the work and, after his or her death, by those entitled under him or her.

Authors who are nationals of non-EU countries enjoy the resale right if the legislation in their country permits resale right protection in that country for authors from the Member States.

However, Member States may decide to apply this Directive to authors who are nationals of non-EU countries but whose habitual residence is in the Member State concerned.

Right to obtain information

For a period of three years after the resale, the persons entitled to receive royalties have the right to demand of any art market professional any information that may be necessary to secure payment of royalties from the resale.

Application in time

This Directive applies to all original works of art which, on 1 January 2006, are still protected by the legislation of the Member States in the field of copyright or meet the criteria for protection under the provisions of this Directive on that date.

Background

Although the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works gives the author of an original work of art the resale right, this however is not binding, which means that certain Member States do not apply it. As a result of this, there are barriers to the internal market and distortions of competition within it as well as a lack of protection for the authors of original artistic works.

Key terms used in the act
  • Resale right: The right, for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, to receive a percentage of the price obtained for any resale, made by professionals from the art market, of this work (auction houses, galleries or any other art market).

References

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Directive 2001/84/EC 13.10.2002 1.1.2006
1.1.2010
OJ L 272, 13.10.2001

Related Acts

Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (codified version) [Official Journal L 372 of 27.12.2006].

Legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access

Legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Internal market > Businesses in the internal market > Intellectual property

Legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access

ACT

European Parliament and Council Directive 98/84/EC of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access.

SUMMARY

Scope

The proposal covers all services supplied on the basis of conditional * access, such as pay-television and pay-radio services, on-demand video and audio services, electronic publishing and a large range of on-line services that are available to the public on a subscription or pay-per-view basis.

Illicit activities

Each Member State is required to take the measures necessary to prohibit on its territory the following activities:

  • the manufacture, import, sale, renting or possession for commercial purposes of illicit devices, i.e. any equipment or software designed or adapted to give unauthorised access to a protected service *;
  • the installation, maintenance or replacement for commercial purposes of an illicit device;
  • the use of commercial communications to promote illicit devices.

Sanctions and remedies

Each Member State is required to take the measures necessary:

  • to provide sanctions which are effective, deterrent and proportional to the potential impact of the infringing activity;
  • to ensure that service providers whose interests are affected by an infringing activity carried out on its territory can bring an action for damages and seek an injunction and, where appropriate, apply for the seizure of illicit devices.

Principles relating to the internal market

Member States are not permitted:

  • to restrict the provision of protected services, or associated services, that originate in another Member State;
  • to restrict the free movement of conditional access devices, except those devices designated by the Directive as illicit.

Key terms used in the act

  • Protected service: television broadcasting, radio broadcasting or information society service provided against remuneration and on the basis of conditional access.
  • Conditional access: technical measure and arrangement whereby access to the protected service in an intelligible form is made conditional upon prior individual authorisation.

REFERENCES

Act

Entry into force

Deadline for transposition in the Member States

Official Journal

Directive 98/84/CE [adoption: codecision COD/1997/0198]

28.11.1998

28.05.2000

OJ L 320 of 28.11.1998

RELATED ACTS

Second report of 30 September 2008 on the implementation of Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998, on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access [COM(2008) 593 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

The Commission notes that the transposition of Directive 98/84/EC has allowed piracy to be reduced in the European Union, and particularly in countries where accession is recent. It underlines however two major difficulties: the lack of technical knowledge on the part of the authorities responsible for implementation, related in particular to fast developments in this field, and the low level of sanctions. The Commission insists moreover on the importance of allowing European citizens living in a Member State other than their State of origin to have access to a legal audiovisual offer in their native language, which would contribute to the free movement of persons and services.
The Commission proposes to set up an expert group on conditional access which will act to reinforce administrative cooperation between Member States and discuss problems related to the application of the Directive. The subjects to be tackled as priorities would be in particular: new forms of piracy, the deterrent nature of sanctions, the possible sanction on the possession of systems enabling access to services in an illicit way, links with provisions on copyright protection and the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in conditional access services.

Report from the Commission of 24 April 2003 on the implementation of Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, and consisting of, conditional access [COM(2003) 198 final – Not published in the Official Journal].
This first Commission report on the implementation of Directive 98/84/EC is part of the Commission’s comprehensive Internal Market strategy to remove barriers to services.
It describes and analyses the salient facts relating to the key provisions of the Directive, looks at how these provisions are implemented and enforced by Member States and candidate countries, and highlights current trends in piracy.
It covers the period from adoption of the Directive in November 1998 through to the end of 2002.
The report shows that the implementation of the Directive has not yet been fully achieved within the enlarged Union, and stresses that enforcement at national level has to be consolidated and that joint efforts will be instrumental in fighting piracy effectively.
The report observes that pirating electronic pay services is considered to be a cyber crime. It concludes that it would be premature to propose amendments to the Directive, but that the consultations and assessment undertaken in the context of the Report have enabled the Commission to identify several issues that deserve further reflection. These issues include the need to create a balanced and coherent enforcement framework applicable to all kinds of piracy and counterfeiting and the distribution of keys and illicit devices via the Internet.

Management of online rights in musical works

Management of online rights in musical works

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Management of online rights in musical works

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Internal market > Businesses in the internal market > Intellectual property

Management of online rights in musical works

Document or Iniciative

Commission Recommendation 2005/737/EC of 18 May 2005 on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services [Official Journal L 276, 21.10.2005].

Summary

This Recommendation on the management of online rights in musical works puts forward measures for improving the EU-wide licensing of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services. Improvements are necessary because new Internet-based services such as “webcasting” *, “streaming” * or on on-demand music downloads need a licence that covers their activities throughout the EU.

Relations between right-holders, collective rights managers and commercial users

Right-holders * should be able to able to entrust management of the rights necessary to operate online music services, on the territorial scale of their choice, to the rights manager * of their choice. The choice of such a rights manager should be possible irrespective of the latter’s Member State of residence or nationality.

As regards the licensing of online rights *, the relationship between right-holders and collective rights managers, should be governed by, at least, the following:

  • right-holders should be able to determine the online rights to be entrusted for collective management;
  • right-holders should be able to determine the territorial scope of the mandate of the collective rights managers;
  • right-holders should have the right to withdraw any of the online rights and transfer the management of those rights to another collective rights manager, irrespective of the latter’s Member State of residence or nationality;

Collective rights managers should inform right-holders and commercial users * of the repertoire * they represent, any existing reciprocal representation agreements, the territorial scope of their mandates for that repertoire and the applicable tariffs.

Collective rights managers should grant commercial users licences on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria.

Equitable distribution and deductions

Collective rights managers should distribute royalties charged on downloaded online music to all right-holders or the category of right-holders they represent in an equitable manner.

Contracts between collective rights managers and right-holders should specify whether any deductions from the royalties are to be distributed for purposes other than for the management services provided. Such deductions should be specified to right-holders upon payment of the royalties.

Non-discrimination and representation

The relationship between collective rights managers and right-holders should be based on the following principles:

  • equal treatment of any category of right-holder as regards all elements of the management service provided;
  • fair and balanced representation of right-holders in the internal decision-making process.

Accountability

Collective rights managers should report regularly to all right-holders they represent on any licences granted, applicable tariffs and royalties collected and distributed.

Dispute settlement

Member States are invited to provide for dispute resolution mechanisms, in particular in relation to tariffs, licensing conditions, entrustment of online rights for management and withdrawal of rights.

Background

At present, licensing of online rights is often restricted to a particular territory. Commercial users needs to negotiate in each Member State with collective rights managers to obtain the right-holder’s permission. Thus, the absence of a single EU-wide copyright and related rights licence for online music services may act as a brake on development of such music services.

In July 2005, the European Commission published a study (EN ) (pdf) on the detailed rules for issuing licences to use musical works over the internet. The study concludes that there is a need to reorganise the cross-border collective management of copyright and related rights for the use of online music. To this end, it suggests enabling right-holders to authorise a collective rights manager of their choice to manage their work throughout the EU.

Key terms used in the act
Webcasting: the broadcasting of audio and/or video content over the internet.
Streaming: technology used in webcasting for the broadcasting of audio and video content.
Right-holder: any natural or legal person that holds rights.

Collective rights manager: any organisation the sole or one of the main objects of which is to manage or administer copyright or related rights.
Online rights: online rights cover:
– exclusive right of reproduction;
– the right of communication to the public of a musical work, either in the form of a right to authorise or prohibit, or a right to equitable remuneration. This includes webcasting, internet radio and near-on-demand services received either on a personal computer or on a mobile telephone;
– the exclusive right of making available a musical work, which includes on-demand or other interactive services;
Commercial user: any person involved in the provision of online music services who needs a licence from right-holders in order to provide legitimate online music services;
Repertoire: the catalogue of musical works administered by a collective rights manager.

Accession to the WIPO Treaties

Accession to the WIPO Treaties

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Accession to the WIPO Treaties

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Internal market > Businesses in the internal market > Intellectual property

Accession to the WIPO Treaties

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision of 16 March 2000, on the approval on behalf of the European Community of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty [Not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

Context 
The Conventions of Paris (protection of industrial property) and Bern (protection of literary and artistic works) form the basis of the WIPO Treaties. Subsequent treaties extended the protection offered by taking account of technical developments and new fields of interest (e.g. the information society).

The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) aim to update international protection of copyright and related rights in the Internet age, by supplementing the provisions of the Bern Convention to adapt them to the digital environment.

WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) 
According to the provisions of the Treaty, authors will enjoy legal protection for the distribution, commercial rental and communication to the public of their works on the network. Specific protection is also provided for technical operations and systems for identifying and managing works.

WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) 
This Treaty concerns related rights and improves the protection of artists/performers and producers of phonograms. They enjoy exclusive rights for the copying, distribution, commercial rental and making of their performances and phonograms available to the public via networks. They also have a right of remuneration for broadcasting and any other means of communication to the public for commercial purposes.

Accession of the Community 
In the Decision, the Council approves the two WIPO Treaties on behalf of the Community and authorises the Commission to represent the Community at the meetings of the Assemblies referred to in the Treaties. The Commission may also negotiate in this context on the basis of briefs agreed beforehand by the Commission and the Council within the competent Council working party or at ad hoc meetings. For the first time, the Community as such may become party to WIPO Treaties in the field of copyright and neighbouring rights.

Entry into force of the Treaties 
These Treaties will enter into force three months after 30 instruments of ratification or accession have been submitted to WIPO.

The Community’s instruments of ratification will be deposited following the deadline for the Member States’ transposition of the legislation necessary to adapt Community legislation to the content of the Treaties. The legislation in question is the Directive on copyright and related rights in the information society, which was adopted on 22 May 2001 and the deadline for transposition of which is 22 December 2002.

Establishment of the Community Patent Court

Establishment of the Community Patent Court

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Establishment of the Community Patent Court

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Internal market > Businesses in the internal market > Intellectual property

Establishment of the Community Patent Court

Proposals

Proposal for a Council decision conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Justice in disputes relating to the Community patent; and

Proposal for a Council decision establishing the Community Patent Court and concerning appeals before the Court of First Instance.

Summary

Proposal on the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice

The first proposal put forward by the Commission aims to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Justice in disputes relating to Community patents.

In accordance with this proposal, the Court shall have jurisdiction over:

  • disputes relating to the infringement and the validity of the Community patent;
  • the use of an invention after the publication of the Community patent application or the right based on prior use of the invention;
  • interim and evidence-protection measures in connection with the subject matters conferred;
  • damages or compensation in the circumstances set out above;
  • the ordering of a penalty payment in case of non-compliance with a decision or order.

Given that the Community Patent Court will only be established after a transitional period (at the latest by 2010), the proposal contains a transitional provision under which the national courts shall retain jurisdiction during this period. Disputes of which a national court has already been seized during the transitional period will not therefore be affected by the conferral of jurisdiction on the Court of Justice.

Proposal establishing the Community Patent Court

The second proposal establishes the Community Patent Court, under the aegis of the Court of Justice. The jurisdiction of the Community Patent Court is determined by way of reference to the Council Decision, as set out in the proposal above, which confers jurisdiction on the Court of Justice in disputes relating to the Community patent. The Court will thus be competent, at first instance, in the areas specified in this Decision (see above).

It is proposed that the Court consist of seven judges, who shall be appointed for a period of six years. The Judges shall be chosen from candidates presented by the Member States. They shall be appointed by the Council of Ministers on the basis of their legal expertise in patent law, following consultation of an advisory committee. Once appointed, the judges will elect a president from among their number for a term of three years with the possibility of re-election.

The Court shall sit in chambers of three Judges. In certain cases, it may sit in an enlarged configuration, or be constituted by a single Judge.

The Court may order interim measures even before the commencement of proceedings on the merits of the case.

The language of proceedings is, as a general rule, the official language of the Member State where the defendant is domiciled.

An appeal against a decision of the Community Patent Court may be brought before the Court of First Instance within two weeks of its notification. It is proposed that a specialised chamber be set up within the Court of First Instance to hear appeals against decisions of the Community Patent Court. The appeal may be based on points of law (such as a breach of procedure) or matters of fact (e.g. a re-evaluation of the facts or evidence).

It should be noted that the establishment of this Community Court signifies a major change, as the Court of Justice will henceforth have jurisdiction to rule on disputes involving private parties, whereas up until now it only encountered this type of dispute in the context of questions referred for a preliminary ruling.

References And Procedure

Proposal Official Journal Procedure
COM(2003) 827 / Cooperation CNS/2003/0326
COM(2003) 828 / Cooperation CNS/2003/0324

Technology transfer agreements

Technology transfer agreements

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Technology transfer agreements

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Internal market > Businesses in the internal market > Intellectual property

Technology transfer agreements

Document or Iniciative

Commission Regulation (EC) No 772/2004 of 7 April 2004 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of technology transfer agreements.

Summary

Intellectual property legislation confers exclusive rights on holders of patents *, copyright, design rights, registered trademarks and other rights protected by the law. A holder of intellectual property rights is authorised to prevent any unauthorised use of its intellectual property * and to exploit such property, in particular by licensing it to third parties. Technology transfer agreements * concern the licensing of technology.

Such agreements will usually improve economic efficiency and be pro-competitive as they can reduce duplication of research and development, strengthen the incentive for the initial research and development, spur incremental innovation, facilitate diffusion and generate product market competition. However, licensing agreements may also be used for anti-competitive purposes, e.g. where two competitors use a licensing agreement to share out markets between themselves or where an important licence holder excludes competing technologies from the market.

In order to strike the right balance between the protection of competition and the protection of intellectual property rights, this block exemption regulation creates an area of certainty for most licensing agreements. The guidelines specify how Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (ex-Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC)) should be applied to agreements not falling within the area of certainty.

Scope

The scope of the new rules not only covers patent and know-how * licensing agreements but also applies to design and model rights and software copyright licences. In cases where the Commission does not have the right to adopt a block exemption regulation, e.g. for agreements on patent pooling or the granting of copyright licences in general, the guidelines provide clear guidance on the future policy regarding the application of the rules. This regulation does not, however, concern licensing agreements relating to the subcontracting of R&D activities.

Implementing conditions

In order to determine the area of certainty applicable to licensing agreements, this regulation distinguishes between competing and non-competing undertakings, regarding the former as undertakings which compete on the relevant technology market and/or the relevant product market.

The regulation stipulates, however, that the following are exempt from the restrictions laid down in Article 101(1) TFEU (ex-Article 81(1) TEC):

  • agreements concluded between competing undertakings where the market share does not exceed 20 % of the relevant market;
  • agreements concluded between non-competing undertakings where the market share does not exceed 30 % of the relevant market.

These exemptions are granted on condition that the agreements do not contain certain restrictions that have serious anti-competitive effects. In this respect, the regulation lists a whole set of hardcore and excluded restrictions (Articles 4 and 5) that have serious anti-competitive effects and are, therefore, prohibited. In other words, anything not expressly excluded from the block exemption regulation is exempt. In the absence of hardcore restrictions, undertakings that sign agreements not exceeding the market share thresholds may consider their agreements to be compatible with European competition legislation.

Market share is calculated on the basis of market sales value data relating to the preceding calendar year. If the market share is initially not more than 20 % or 30 % but subsequently rises above that level, the exemption continues to apply for a period of two consecutive calendar years following the year in which the 20 % or 30 % threshold was first exceeded.

Withdrawal of the exemption

Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 empowers the competent authorities of European Union (EU) countries to withdraw the benefit of the block exemption in respect of technology transfer agreements having effects incompatible with Article 101(3) TFEU (ex-Article 81(3) TEC) in their respectively territory or in a part of that territory and where such territory has the characteristics of a distinct geographic market. EU countries must ensure uniform application throughout the common market of the EU competition rules.

The Commission may also withdraw the benefit of this regulation where:

  • it finds in any particular case that a technology transfer agreement has effects which are incompatible with Article 101(3) TFEU;
  • it notes the existence of parallel networks covering more than 50 % of a relevant market. In this case, the Commission may declare by regulation that this regulation is not applicable.

Agreements already in force on 30 April 2004 which satisfy the conditions for exemption provided for in Regulation (EC) No 240/96 are not prohibited during the period from 1 May 2004 to 31 March 2006.

Background

Regulation (EC) No 772/2004 falls within the framework of Regulation No 19/65/EEC empowering the Commission in accordance with Article 101(3) TFEU to exempt certain types of agreement. It replaces Regulation (EC) No 240/96 of 31 January 1996, which expired on 30 April 2004.

Key terms used in the act
  • Technology transfer agreement: a patent licensing agreement, a know-how licensing agreement, a software copyright licensing agreement or a mixed patent, know-how or software copyright licensing agreement, including any such agreement containing provisions which relate to the sale and purchase of products or which relate to the licensing of other intellectual property rights or the assignment of intellectual property rights, provided that those provisions do not constitute the primary object of the agreement and are directly related to the production of the copyright products; assignments of patents, know-how, software copyright or a combination thereof where part of the risk associated with the exploitation of the technology remains with the assignor are also deemed to be technology transfer agreements.
  • Intellectual property rights: industrial property rights, know-how, copyright and neighbouring rights.
  • Patents: patents, patent applications, utility models, applications for registration of utility models, designs, topographies of semi-conductor products, supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products or other products for which such supplementary protection certificates may be obtained and plant breeder’s certificates.
  • Know-how: a package of non-patented practical information, resulting from experience and testing, which is secret (that is to say, not generally know or easily accessible), substantial (that is to say, significant and useful for the production of the contract products) and identified (that is to say, described in a sufficiently comprehensive manner so as to make it possible to verify that it fulfils the criteria of secrecy and substantiality).
Act Entry into force – Date of expiry Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal

Regulation (EC) No 772/2004

1.5.2004 – 30.4.2014

OJ L 123 of 27.4.2004

Related Acts

Commission Notice – Guidelines on the application of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to technology transfer agreements [Official Journal C 101 of 27.4.2004].
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide guidance on the application of the block exemption regulation and on the application of Article 101 TFEU (ex-Article 81 TEC) to technology transfer agreements that fall outside the scope of the regulation. For example, in the case of agreements pooling patents or the granting of copyright licences in general, the guidelines provide clear guidance on the future policy on applying the rules. The block exemption regulation and the guidelines are not prejudicial to possible parallel application of Article 102 TFEU (ex-Article 82 TEC) to licensing agreements. The criteria set out in the guidelines must be applied in the light of the circumstances of the individual case, thereby ruling out any mechanical application. The Commission will monitor how the regulation and the guidelines are being applied under the new implementation arrangements introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in order to determine whether any amendments should be made.

Agreement on intellectual property rights relating to trade and pharmaceutical patents

Agreement on intellectual property rights relating to trade and pharmaceutical patents

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Agreement on intellectual property rights relating to trade and pharmaceutical patents

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Internal market > Pharmaceutical and cosmetic products

Agreement on intellectual property rights relating to trade and pharmaceutical patents

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994).

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

Summary

GENERAL PROVISIONS AND BASIC PRINCIPLES

The principles are those of national treatment and most-favoured-nation treatment. Thus, members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) must accord the nationals of other members’ treatment no less favourable than that they accord to their own nationals. Moreover, any advantage granted by a member to nationals of another member must be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the nationals of all other members even if this treatment is more favourable than that accorded to its own nationals.

The Agreement aims to ensure that adequate rules on the protection of intellectual property are applied in all member countries, on the basis of the basic obligations laid down by the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) in the various conventions on intellectual property rights, particularly the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Numerous new rules or stricter rules are introduced in fields not covered by the existing conventions or where the existing conventions are inadequate.

The agreement covers a vast range of topics, from copyright and trademarks to layout-designs of integrated circuits and trade secrets. Patents protecting pharmaceutical products and other products are just one part of this agreement.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR PHARMACEUTICAL PATENTS

Patents provide the patent owner with the legal means to prevent others from making, using, or selling the new invention for a limited period of time, subject to a number of exceptions. Patents do not constitute marketing authorisations.

The TRIPS Agreement stipulates that it must be possible for all inventions to be protected by a patent for 20 years, whether for a product (such as a medicine) or a process (a method of producing an ingredient for a medicine). To qualify for a patent, an invention has to be “new”, it must be an “inventive step” and it must have “industrial applicability”. In addition, patented inventions have to be disclosed; enabling others to study the invention even while it is patent protected.

Governments can refuse to grant patents for the three reasons set out below:

  • for inventions whose commercial exploitation needs to be prevented to protect human, animal or plant life or health;
  • for diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for treating humans or animals;
  • for certain plant and animal inventions.

Governments also play a supervisory role and can act to prevent patent owners from abusing these rights (anti-competitive practices) or hampering the transfer of technology.

The TRIPS Agreement makes provision for limited exceptions to patent rights. These exceptions must not “unreasonably” conflict with the “normal” exploitation of the patent. These exceptions are used in very different instances and in particular:

  • to advance science and facilitate the transfer of technology, by allowing researchers to use a patented invention for research (research exception);
  • to speed up the process of marketing a generic drug. Some countries allow manufacturers of generic drugs to use the patented invention to obtain marketing approval without the patent owner’s permission and before the patent protection expires. The generic producers can then market their versions as soon as the patent expires, since the (generally very lengthy) procedure involved in obtaining marketing authorisation has already been completed. This provision is called the “Bolar provision”.

Flexibility in the application of patent law: compulsory licensing and parallel imports

In addition to the two exceptions to patent law mentioned above (Bolar provision and research exceptions), the TRIPS agreement make provision for two other forms of flexibility: compulsory licensing and parallel imports. These two systems should make it possible to strike a balance between promoting access to existing drugs and promoting research and development into new drugs.

Compulsory licensing

Governments can issue compulsory licences when they allow someone else to produce the patented product or use the patented process without the consent of the patent owner. The granting of compulsory licences without the authorisation of the patent owner can only be done under certain conditions aimed at protecting the legitimate interests of the patent holder. In particular, the party applying for a licence must have first attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain a voluntary licence from the right holder on reasonable commercial terms and within a reasonable period of time. In addition, these compulsory licences should be granted mainly to supply the domestic market.

There is, however, no need to apply for a voluntary licence in advance in the following cases:

  • national emergencies;
  • other circumstances of extreme urgency;
  • public non-commercial use;
  • anti-competitive practices.

Parallel imports

The term parallel imports is used when products manufactured and marketed by the patent holder in one country are imported by another company. The legal principle here is “exhaustion”, the idea that once a pharmaceutical company has sold its product its patent rights are exhausted and it no longer has any rights over what happens to the product. This therefore allows any other company to buy the product in a country where the selling price is lower and import it in order to profit financially from the difference in prices. The TRIPS agreement points out that disputes relating to these parallel imports cannot be handled by the WTO. This means in effect, as stated in the Doha Declaration, that each member of the WTO remains free to establish its own regime for exhaustion.

IMPLMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT

Enforcement of intellectual property rights

The laws of the member countries of the WTO must include procedures to ensure that intellectual property rights are respected both by foreign right holders and by their own nationals. These procedures must permit effective action against any act of infringement of these rights. They must be fair and equitable, they must not be unnecessarily complicated or costly, and they must not entail unreasonable time limits. Final administrative decisions may be reviewed by a judicial authority.

The Agreement provides details concerning evidence, injunctions, damages, provisional measures and other remedies.

Transition period

With regard to the application of the Agreement, developed countries have a period of one year to bring their legislation and practices into line with the Agreement. This period is extended to five years (i.e. to 2000) for developing countries and countries in the process of transformation from a centrally-planned economy to a market economy, and to eleven years (i.e. to 2006) for the least-developed countries (LDC), with the possibility for the latter to obtain an extension. On 29 November 2005, the Council for TRIPS decided to extend the transitional period for LDCs until 1 July 2013.

In the case of pharmaceutical products, developing countries that did not provide product patent protection on 1 January 1995 (when the TRIPS Agreement came into force) have up to 10 years to introduce this protection. In the meantime they have to comply with two obligations:

  • they must allow inventors to file patent applications from 1 January 1995, even though the decision on whether or not to grant any patent itself need not be taken until the end of this transition period (the “mailbox” provision);
  • if the government allows a pharmaceutical product to be marketed during the transition period, the country in question must grant the patent applicant an exclusive marketing right for the product for five years.

Institutional framework

The Agreement created a Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the Council for TRIPS). It is responsible for monitoring the operation of the Agreement, ensuring that members comply with their obligations and affording opportunities for consultations between members.

The settlement of disputes over intellectual property is governed by the dispute settlement procedures adopted following the Uruguay Round negotiations.

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Decision 94/800/EC Effective date: 22.10.1994
Date of entry into force: 01.01.1995
Official Journal L 336 of 23.12.1994

Related Acts

of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on compulsory licensing of patents relating to the manufacture of pharmaceutical products for export to countries with public health problems

The purpose of this Regulation is to harmonise within the European Union (EU) the conditions for granting compulsory export licences to companies intending to manufacture generic medicinal products for export to developing countries which do not have sufficient production capacity of their own. The Regulation aims to prevent distortion of competition among operators in the single market and to apply uniform rules in order to avoid the reimport into the EU of pharmaceutical products manufactured under the compulsory licences.

Ministerial Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health adopted on 14 November 2001 (Doha Declaration)
This Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health seeks to address the concerns expressed by developing countries regarding the possible implications of the TRIPS agreement on access to medicines.
The Declaration interprets some of the key provisions of the TRIPS agreement. The Ministers reaffirm the right of the member countries to use the flexibilities that are built into the TRIPS Agreement, in particular compulsory licensing and parallel importing.
The WTO members also agreed to extend exemptions on pharmaceutical patent protection for least-developed countries at least until 2016.
Finally, the ministers assigned the TRIPS Council the additional task of sorting out how to provide extra flexibility, so that countries unable to produce pharmaceuticals domestically can import patented drugs made under compulsory licensing.

Decision adopted by the WTO General Council on 30 August 2003

The decision adopted by the WTO General Council on 30 August 2003 allows countries that can make drugs to export drugs made under compulsory licence to countries that cannot manufacture them. This authorisation constitutes a derogation from the TRIPS agreement since products made under compulsory license must normally be predominantly for the domestic market. This will therefore make it easier for poorer countries to import cheaper generics made under compulsory licensing if they are unable to manufacture these themselves. For a long time, the stumbling block for negotiations within the WTO was determining which diseases were covered by the decision. In the end, the decision refers to the Doha Declaration that covers “the public health problems afflicting many developing and least-developed countries, especially those resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics.” It is now widely accepted that this coverage is fairly flexible.
The August 2003 decision also introduces safeguards in order to prevent rich countries profiting from the system by diverting trade through smuggling. A statement accompanies the decision from the Chairperson of the WTO General Council that is intended to reassure countries who feared that the decision might be abused. It points out that the system of derogations introduced will be used “in good faith to protect public health and not as an instrument to pursue industrial or commercial policy objectives”.
Finally, the decision of August 2003 lays down that the decisions taken in it should be put into practice by an amendment to the TRIPS agreement by mid-2004. On 6 December 2005, the WTO General Council adopted the decision, changing the provisional agreement of August 2003 into an amendment to the TRIPS agreement. WTO members have until 1 December 2007 to accept the amendment.

 


Another Normative about Agreement on intellectual property rights relating to trade and pharmaceutical patents

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic

Internal market > Businesses in the internal market > Intellectual property

Agreement on intellectual property rights relating to trade and pharmaceutical patents

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994).

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

Summary

GENERAL PROVISIONS AND BASIC PRINCIPLES

The principles are those of national treatment and most-favoured-nation treatment. Thus, members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) must accord the nationals of other members’ treatment no less favourable than that they accord to their own nationals. Moreover, any advantage granted by a member to nationals of another member must be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the nationals of all other members even if this treatment is more favourable than that accorded to its own nationals.

The Agreement aims to ensure that adequate rules on the protection of intellectual property are applied in all member countries, on the basis of the basic obligations laid down by the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) in the various conventions on intellectual property rights, particularly the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Numerous new rules or stricter rules are introduced in fields not covered by the existing conventions or where the existing conventions are inadequate.

The agreement covers a vast range of topics, from copyright and trademarks to layout-designs of integrated circuits and trade secrets. Patents protecting pharmaceutical products and other products are just one part of this agreement.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR PHARMACEUTICAL PATENTS

Patents provide the patent owner with the legal means to prevent others from making, using, or selling the new invention for a limited period of time, subject to a number of exceptions. Patents do not constitute marketing authorisations.

The TRIPS Agreement stipulates that it must be possible for all inventions to be protected by a patent for 20 years, whether for a product (such as a medicine) or a process (a method of producing an ingredient for a medicine). To qualify for a patent, an invention has to be “new”, it must be an “inventive step” and it must have “industrial applicability”. In addition, patented inventions have to be disclosed; enabling others to study the invention even while it is patent protected.

Governments can refuse to grant patents for the three reasons set out below:

  • for inventions whose commercial exploitation needs to be prevented to protect human, animal or plant life or health;
  • for diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for treating humans or animals;
  • for certain plant and animal inventions.

Governments also play a supervisory role and can act to prevent patent owners from abusing these rights (anti-competitive practices) or hampering the transfer of technology.

The TRIPS Agreement makes provision for limited exceptions to patent rights. These exceptions must not “unreasonably” conflict with the “normal” exploitation of the patent. These exceptions are used in very different instances and in particular:

  • to advance science and facilitate the transfer of technology, by allowing researchers to use a patented invention for research (research exception);
  • to speed up the process of marketing a generic drug. Some countries allow manufacturers of generic drugs to use the patented invention to obtain marketing approval without the patent owner’s permission and before the patent protection expires. The generic producers can then market their versions as soon as the patent expires, since the (generally very lengthy) procedure involved in obtaining marketing authorisation has already been completed. This provision is called the “Bolar provision”.

Flexibility in the application of patent law: compulsory licensing and parallel imports

In addition to the two exceptions to patent law mentioned above (Bolar provision and research exceptions), the TRIPS agreement make provision for two other forms of flexibility: compulsory licensing and parallel imports. These two systems should make it possible to strike a balance between promoting access to existing drugs and promoting research and development into new drugs.

Compulsory licensing

Governments can issue compulsory licences when they allow someone else to produce the patented product or use the patented process without the consent of the patent owner. The granting of compulsory licences without the authorisation of the patent owner can only be done under certain conditions aimed at protecting the legitimate interests of the patent holder. In particular, the party applying for a licence must have first attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain a voluntary licence from the right holder on reasonable commercial terms and within a reasonable period of time. In addition, these compulsory licences should be granted mainly to supply the domestic market.

There is, however, no need to apply for a voluntary licence in advance in the following cases:

  • national emergencies;
  • other circumstances of extreme urgency;
  • public non-commercial use;
  • anti-competitive practices.

Parallel imports

The term parallel imports is used when products manufactured and marketed by the patent holder in one country are imported by another company. The legal principle here is “exhaustion”, the idea that once a pharmaceutical company has sold its product its patent rights are exhausted and it no longer has any rights over what happens to the product. This therefore allows any other company to buy the product in a country where the selling price is lower and import it in order to profit financially from the difference in prices. The TRIPS agreement points out that disputes relating to these parallel imports cannot be handled by the WTO. This means in effect, as stated in the Doha Declaration, that each member of the WTO remains free to establish its own regime for exhaustion.

IMPLMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT

Enforcement of intellectual property rights

The laws of the member countries of the WTO must include procedures to ensure that intellectual property rights are respected both by foreign right holders and by their own nationals. These procedures must permit effective action against any act of infringement of these rights. They must be fair and equitable, they must not be unnecessarily complicated or costly, and they must not entail unreasonable time limits. Final administrative decisions may be reviewed by a judicial authority.

The Agreement provides details concerning evidence, injunctions, damages, provisional measures and other remedies.

Transition period

With regard to the application of the Agreement, developed countries have a period of one year to bring their legislation and practices into line with the Agreement. This period is extended to five years (i.e. to 2000) for developing countries and countries in the process of transformation from a centrally-planned economy to a market economy, and to eleven years (i.e. to 2006) for the least-developed countries (LDC), with the possibility for the latter to obtain an extension. On 29 November 2005, the Council for TRIPS decided to extend the transitional period for LDCs until 1 July 2013.

In the case of pharmaceutical products, developing countries that did not provide product patent protection on 1 January 1995 (when the TRIPS Agreement came into force) have up to 10 years to introduce this protection. In the meantime they have to comply with two obligations:

  • they must allow inventors to file patent applications from 1 January 1995, even though the decision on whether or not to grant any patent itself need not be taken until the end of this transition period (the “mailbox” provision);
  • if the government allows a pharmaceutical product to be marketed during the transition period, the country in question must grant the patent applicant an exclusive marketing right for the product for five years.

Institutional framework

The Agreement created a Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the Council for TRIPS). It is responsible for monitoring the operation of the Agreement, ensuring that members comply with their obligations and affording opportunities for consultations between members.

The settlement of disputes over intellectual property is governed by the dispute settlement procedures adopted following the Uruguay Round negotiations.

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Decision 94/800/EC Effective date: 22.10.1994
Date of entry into force: 01.01.1995
Official Journal L 336 of 23.12.1994

Related Acts


Regulation (EC) No 816/2006

of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on compulsory licensing of patents relating to the manufacture of pharmaceutical products for export to countries with public health problems

The purpose of this Regulation is to harmonise within the European Union (EU) the conditions for granting compulsory export licences to companies intending to manufacture generic medicinal products for export to developing countries which do not have sufficient production capacity of their own. The Regulation aims to prevent distortion of competition among operators in the single market and to apply uniform rules in order to avoid the reimport into the EU of pharmaceutical products manufactured under the compulsory licences.

Ministerial Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health adopted on 14 November 2001 (Doha Declaration)
This Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health seeks to address the concerns expressed by developing countries regarding the possible implications of the TRIPS agreement on access to medicines.
The Declaration interprets some of the key provisions of the TRIPS agreement. The Ministers reaffirm the right of the member countries to use the flexibilities that are built into the TRIPS Agreement, in particular compulsory licensing and parallel importing.
The WTO members also agreed to extend exemptions on pharmaceutical patent protection for least-developed countries at least until 2016.
Finally, the ministers assigned the TRIPS Council the additional task of sorting out how to provide extra flexibility, so that countries unable to produce pharmaceuticals domestically can import patented drugs made under compulsory licensing.

Decision adopted by the WTO General Council on 30 August 2003

The decision adopted by the WTO General Council on 30 August 2003 allows countries that can make drugs to export drugs made under compulsory licence to countries that cannot manufacture them. This authorisation constitutes a derogation from the TRIPS agreement since products made under compulsory license must normally be predominantly for the domestic market. This will therefore make it easier for poorer countries to import cheaper generics made under compulsory licensing if they are unable to manufacture these themselves. For a long time, the stumbling block for negotiations within the WTO was determining which diseases were covered by the decision. In the end, the decision refers to the Doha Declaration that covers “the public health problems afflicting many developing and least-developed countries, especially those resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics.” It is now widely accepted that this coverage is fairly flexible.
The August 2003 decision also introduces safeguards in order to prevent rich countries profiting from the system by diverting trade through smuggling. A statement accompanies the decision from the Chairperson of the WTO General Council that is intended to reassure countries who feared that the decision might be abused. It points out that the system of derogations introduced will be used “in good faith to protect public health and not as an instrument to pursue industrial or commercial policy objectives”.
Finally, the decision of August 2003 lays down that the decisions taken in it should be put into practice by an amendment to the TRIPS agreement by mid-2004. On 6 December 2005, the WTO General Council adopted the decision, changing the provisional agreement of August 2003 into an amendment to the TRIPS agreement. WTO members have until 1 December 2007 to accept the amendment.

 

Management of copyright and related rights in the internal market

Management of copyright and related rights in the internal market

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Management of copyright and related rights in the internal market

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Internal market > Businesses in the internal market > Intellectual property

Management of copyright and related rights in the internal market

Document or Iniciative

Commission Communication of April 16, 2004 on the management of copyright and related rights in the internal market [COM (2004) 261 – Not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

This communication deals with the management of copyright and related rights, i.e. how they are administered (granted through licences, assigned or financed). It concludes a consultation process started in 1995.

The Commission considers whether current management methods, which are mainly governed by national legislations, hamper the good functioning of the internal market. The exchange of goods and services based on copyright or related rights increasingly often takes place at Community level. Accordingly, the legislative framework governing the protection of these rights has to cater for this.

The Commission considers whether it is convenient to let the market stimulate Community licensing or whether it is preferable to enact Community legislation. The Commission puts forward a number of options:

  • ensure that any licence on the rights to communicate with or make available to the public, allows – by definition – usage throughout the Community;
  • adopt the same model as the one chosen for satellite broadcasting under Directive 93/83/EEC. The relevant act of communication to the public occurs solely in the Member State where the programme-carrying signals are introduced into an uninterrupted chain of communication up to the satellite and down towards the earth. The Commission expresses reservations, underlining that this approach does not necessarily yield the desired result of multi-territorial licensing;
  • bring the exclusive rights of communication to the public and of ‘making available’ under one remuneration right subject to obligatory collective management;
  • leave users the freedom to choose the collecting society within the European Economic Area which will issue the required operating licence;
  • empower collecting societies to offer Community licences;
  • focus exclusively on forms of collective management by specialised societies.

Another fundamental issue is the management of digital rights. Digital Rights Management systems (DRM systems) enable the distribution to be restricted to copies of digital content by obtaining and managing copyrights. To complete the internal market in this area, it is necessary to establish a global and interoperable technical infrastructure based on consensus among the interested parties, including consumers.

The management of copyrights and related rights can be done either individually or collectively. The Commission has examined these two ways of managing rights.

Individual Rights Management

It is the marketing of rights by individual rightholders to commercial users through exclusive or non-exclusive contractual licences.

The Commission has noted that the degree of common ground across Member States regarding the rules appears to be sufficient in this area. It is therefore not necessary to undertake action at Community level in the near future.

Collective Rights Management

This term refers to the system under which a collecting society, as trustee, jointly administers rights and monitors, collects and distributes the payment of royalties on behalf of several rightholders.

In this area, the Commission underlines the need to have a common legal framework based on the principles of copyright and the needs of the internal market. It would deal with issues linked to the establishment and status of collecting societies. This legislation would foster the emergence of Community licences for exploiting rights and would finalise the internal market.

It has initiated a new consultation process which has led to the adoption of a recommendation on cross-border collective management of copyright and relative rights in the field of legal on-line music services. It also intends to put forward legislation on certain features of collective management and good governance of collecting societies in order to ensure a higher degree of efficiency, legal certainty and transparency.

Enhancing the patent system in Europe

Enhancing the patent system in Europe

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Enhancing the patent system in Europe

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Internal market > Businesses in the internal market > Intellectual property

Enhancing the patent system in Europe

Document or Iniciative

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 3 April 2007 – Enhancing the patent system in Europe [COM(2007) 165 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

The communication points out that the current European patent system is considerably more expensive than the US and Japanese systems. A Community system would be much more attractive than the present system of European patents, which is simply a bundle of national patents. A European patent designating 13 countries is 11 times more expensive than a US patent and 13 times more expensive then a Japanese patent. The existing system for resolving disputes in the EU, with the risk of multiple litigation in a number of Member States on the same patent issue, involves the parties concerned in unnecessary costs and creates a lack of legal certainty.

In view of the difficulties being experienced in the area of patents and, in particular, in creating a Community patent, in 2006 the Commission launched a broad consultation, involving all those concerned, on the future of patent policy in Europe. The results of the consultation leave no doubt as to the urgent need to create a simple, cost-effective and high quality patent system in Europe.

This communication aims to draw operational conclusions from the consultation and enable the Council to open discussions on the reform of the system of patents and, in particular, on the Community patent and jurisdictional arrangements. It also puts forward a number of supporting measures to improve the patent system, concerning patent quality, knowledge transfer and enforcement issues.

The Community patent

Many stakeholders continue to support the Community patent as the approach that will yield most added value for European industry under the Lisbon Strategy. However they criticise the Council’s Common Political Approach adopted in 2003 on the grounds of the high costs of translation and the excessive centralisation of the proposed jurisdictional system.

The Commission believes that a truly competitive and attractive Community patent can be achieved provided there is political will to do so. Concerns about over-centralisation should be taken into account in the creation of the EU-wide patent jurisdiction system. On translation costs, the Commission will explore with the Member States ways of improving the language regime with a view to reducing costs while increasing legal certainty.

Jurisdictional system

Currently, any disputes arising from a European patent granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) can be brought before the national courts. This is because each European patent is a bundle of national patents, which are subject to the national rules of the EPO Contracting States designated in the application. In the absence of a single jurisdiction, disputes are dealt with in accordance with national laws and procedures.

This situation creates difficulties that damage legal certainty and impede business decisions on patented products:

  • multiple litigation: the same issue can be brought before the courts in several countries, creating a difficult situation for competitors;
  • high costs: the parties concerned have to pay court fees and hire lawyers and experts in all the countries in which action is brought;
  • inconsistencies: courts deal with cases in accordance with national law, which can produce different and sometimes contradictory results;
  • choice of forum: given the possibility of choosing which jurisdiction is to apply, parties tend to choose the one most likely to deal with the matter in a way that favours their interests.

The major advantage of a single jurisdiction for patents are the savings made by the parties involved in a dispute. The costs of disputes are currently excessive and vary considerably according to a number of factors, including the complexity of the case, technical aspects and the sums involved. These costs weigh most heavily on individual inventors and small businesses, which can be discouraged from taking out patents and, more generally, from investing in research and development.

Discussion of the new jurisdictional system

The Member States agree on the need for a Europe-wide patent court system that would guarantee cost-effectiveness, legal certainty and proximity to users. However, discussions have revealed differences about how to proceed.

Recent discussions with the Member States have brought to light different views on the jurisdictional system: some Member States support the draft European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) in the context of the European Patent Convention, which aims to create a single jurisdiction for disputes concerning European patents, while others favour the creation of a specific Community jurisdiction based on the Treaty for litigation on European and Community patents.

Under these circumstances, the Commission believes that consensus could be built on the basis of an integrated approach that combines features of both EPLA and a Community jurisdiction. This could involve one single court system with competence for litigation on European patents and future Community patents. Such a judicial system could be based on the EPLA model and allow for harmonious integration into the Community jurisdiction. Initially, efforts should be concentrated on building consensus among Member States around these principles.

The jurisdiction would have competence for infringement and validity actions as well as for related claims such as damages. It should ensure an appropriate degree of proximity to the parties concerned and comprise a limited number of first instance chambers as well as a fully centralised appeal court that would ensure uniformity of interpretation. These chambers, which could make use of existing national structures, should form an integral part of the single jurisdictional system.

The first instance chambers and the appeal court should work under common rules of procedure based on best practices in the Member States.

The patent jurisdiction should have legally and technically qualified judges with full judicial independence.

Finally, the patent jurisdiction must respect the European Court of Justice as the final arbiter in matters of EU law, including questions relating to Community legislation and to the validity of future Community patents.

Supporting measures to improve the patent system

With a view to promoting a reliable patent system, the Commission proposes the following supporting measures:

  • guaranteeing patent quality: rigorous patentability criteria must be applied to maintain the high quality of European patents. Cooperation between patent offices will reduce costs and delivery times;
  • supporting small businesses: small businesses must be given all necessary advice on patents. The Commission is providing backing for support projects under the PRO INNO Europe initiative and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme;
  • improving technology and knowledge transfer: between European businesses on the one hand and between research centres and businesses on the other;
  • enforcing patent rights: the legal framework for patents must be strengthened, taking account of the different ways of resolving disputes, including alternative dispute resolution systems, patent litigation insurance and international standards.

Background

The promotion of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and, in particular, patents is part of the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs, in that it stresses the role of patents as a driving force for European development.

A separate, detailed communication on intellectual property rights is planned for 2008. This will supplement this communication and cover the main non-legislative and horizontal questions relating to all aspects of intellectual property.