Annexes to COM(2003)828 - EC Patent Court and concerning appeals before the Court of First Instance - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2003)828 - EC Patent Court and concerning appeals before the Court of First Instance. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2003)828  |
| date | December 23, 2003 |
3. BUDGET CHARACTERISTICS
>TABLE POSITION>
4. LEGAL BASIS
Articles 225a, 245 of the EC Treaty.
5. DESCRIPTION AND GROUNDS
5.1. Need for Community intervention
5.1.1. Objectives pursued
The proposed Council Decision is part of the overall project to establish the Community patent system. By way of revision of the European Patent Convention and accession of the Community to the same, the European Patent Office shall be empowered to grant Community patents which will confer rights on their holders according to the regulation of the Council on the Community patent. Disputes concerning in particular the infringement and validity of these rights shall, after a transitional period, be brought before a Community jurisdiction. These measures shall reform the system of patent protection in Europe, which has been characterised by national patent titles enforceable before national courts, and make the necessary adaptations for the needs of European industry which increasingly operates trans-nationally within the common market. The measures are designed to increase the competitiveness of the Union's innovative industries by creating a Community wide uniform patent protection which can be enforced before a single Community jurisdiction rendering decisions with Community wide effect.
Within this overall project, the objective of the present proposal is to establish a Community Patent Court for first instance Community patent litigation and to provide for the necessary provisions with a view to accommodating the new function of the Court of First Instance as appeal instance against decisions of the Community Patent Court.
5.1.2. Measures taken in connection with ex ante evaluation
The necessity to create a patent system covering the Community as a whole has been recognised for decades. The first initiative to create such a system resulted in the European Patent Convention of 5 October 1973 which harmonised the grant of the European patent by the European Patent Office but neither included provisions on the rights conferred by such a patent nor created a single jurisdiction to deal with disputes. This is still left to national legislation and jurisdiction of the Contracting States. In a second initiative, EC Member States tried to create a Community patent on the basis of an international agreement including an integrated jurisdiction. The Community Patent Convention was signed on 15 December 1975 in Luxembourg followed by the 15 December 1989 agreement relating to the Community patent which included a protocol on the settlement of litigation concerning the infringement and validity of Community patents. The Convention however never entered into force. In the context of the Amsterdam European Council of June 1997 (action plan for the single market), the Commission published a green paper on the promotion of innovation by patents. The consultations on the green paper including the comments made in the hearing on 25 and 26 November 1997 showed clear support for the creation of a Community patent system. Finally, the Lisbon European Council in March 2000 took up the issue and called for the creation of a Community patent system. The Council in its 3 March 2003 common political approach reached agreement on a number of key issues of the Community patent system including the jurisdictional aspects calling for the establishment of the Community Patent Court on the basis of Article 225a of the EC Treaty.
5.2. Action envisaged and budget intervention arrangements
The proposal constitutes a major element of the envisaged Community patent system. It contains the necessary legal provisions to set up a Community Patent Court which will deal with the Community patent related disputes for which jurisdiction is conferred on the Court of Justice. It also contains necessary provisions with a view to accommodating the new function of the Court of First Instance as appeal instance against decisions of the Community Patent Court. An efficiently functioning Community patent jurisdiction requires adequate resources. Court staff need to be employed (judges, registrar, assistant rapporteurs, legal secretaries, lecteurs, researchers, secretaries, translators, interpreters, librarian), court rooms and equipment (office equipment, ICT facilities, library) have to be provided.
5.3. Methods of implementation
The necessary staff identified in 5.2. will be regular staff employed by the Court of Justice.
6. FINANCIAL IMPACT
6.1. Total financial impact on Part B - (over the entire programming period)
Not applicable
6.2. Calculation of costs by measure envisaged in Part B (over the entire programming period)
Not applicable
7. IMPACT ON STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE
7.1 The year before the Community patent jurisdiction becomes operational (2009)
The following tables show the impact on staff and administrative expenditures in 2009, the year before the Community patent jurisdiction becomes operational.
7.1.1. Impact on human resources
>TABLE POSITION>
7.1.2. Overall financial impact of human resources
>TABLE POSITION>
The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.
7.1.3. Other administrative expenditure deriving from action in 2009
>TABLE POSITION>
The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.
1 Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs.
>TABLE POSITION>
7.2. First two years of operational Community patent jurisdiction (2010-2011)
The following tables show the impact on staff and administrative expenditures in 2010 -2011, the first two years from the start of the Community patent jurisdiction.
7.2.1. Impact on human resources
>TABLE POSITION>
7.2.2. Overall financial impact of human resources
7.2.2.1. Overall financial impact on human resources in 2010
>TABLE POSITION>
The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months. Newly created posts in 2010 are calculated for six months.
7.2.2.2. Overall financial impact on human resources in 2011
>TABLE POSITION>
The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.
7.2.3. Other administrative expenditure deriving from the action
7.2.3.1. Other administrative expenditure deriving from action in 2010
>TABLE POSITION>
The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.
1 Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs.
7.2.3.2. Other administrative expenditure deriving from action in 2011
>TABLE POSITION>
The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.
1 Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs.
>TABLE POSITION>
7.3. Third and fourth year of operation of the Community patent jurisdiction (2012 - 2013)
The following tables show the impact on staff and administrative expenditures in 2012 and 2013, the third and fourth year of the operation of the Community patent jurisdiction.
7.3.1. Impact on human resources
>TABLE POSITION>
7.3.2. Overall financial impact on human resources
7.3.2.1. Overall financial impact on human resources in 2012
>TABLE POSITION>
The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months. Newly created posts in 2012 are calculated for six months.
7.3.2.2. Overall financial impact on human resources in 2013
>TABLE POSITION>
The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.
7.3.3. Other administrative expenditure deriving from action in each of the years 2012 and in 2013
>TABLE POSITION>
The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.
1 Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs.
>TABLE POSITION>
7.4. End of the initial phase (2014)
The following tables show the impact on staff and administrative expenditure in 2014 marking the end of the initial phase when the staffing of the Community patent jurisdiction will be completed.
7.4.1. Impact on human resources
>TABLE POSITION>
7.4.2. Overall financial impact of human resources
>TABLE POSITION>
The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months. Newly created posts in 2014 are calculated for six months.
7.4.3. Other administrative expenditure deriving from the action
>TABLE POSITION>
The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.
1 Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs.
>TABLE POSITION>
8. FOLLOW-UP AND EVALUATION
8.1. Follow-up arrangements
The Council in its 3 March 2003 common political approach (point 5) foresees a review mechanism of the Community patent system including the jurisdictional arrangements. Regarding the contents of the present Decision, the organisation of the Community Patent Court and the provisions of the Statute of the Court of Justice relating to the work of the Community Patent Court at first instance and the Court of First Instance on appeal would have to be reviewed in the light of experience gathered. The Commission will need to consult the Court of Justice and interested circles to collect data on the functioning of the Community patent jurisdiction and will have to evaluate the collected data and where appropriate suggest changes to the current Decision.
8.2. Arrangements and schedule for the planned evaluation
On the basis of the common political approach adopted by the Council on 3 March 2003, the Commission will present a report on the functioning of all aspects of the Community patent including the jurisdictional arrangements five years after the grant of the first Community patent. Further reviews will be made periodically.
9. ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES
This does not apply. The proposal deals with the establishment of a Community Patent Court and the appeal procedure before the Court of First Instance and does not cover a policy area with a risk of fraud.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON BUSINESS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES( SMEs)
Title of proposal
Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the Community Patent Court and concerning appeals before the Court of First Instance.
Document reference number
[...]
The proposal
1. Taking account of the principle of subsidiarity, why is Community legislation necessary in this area and what are its main aims?
The object of the Community patent system is to provide a Community wide patent protection which can be enforced before one single court operating to uniform standards and whose decisions enjoy Community wide effect. This objective can only be achieved at a Community level.
The impact on business
2. Who will be affected by the proposal?
- which sectors of business
All sectors of business that deal with technical inventions which can be subject to patent protection are concerned by the Community patent system. They can in case of conflict be party to litigation before the Community jurisdiction.
- which sizes of business (what is the concentration of small and medium-sized firms)
Potentially every size of business can be a party to Community patent litigation before the Community patent jurisdiction. For example, the holder of a Community patent may as a plaintiff wish to enforce his rights flowing from the Community patent title before the Community Patent Court. A third person may as a plaintiff wish to attack the validity of such a Community patent granting exclusive rights to its holder that he considers to be invalid. As defendant the right holder may wish to defend the validity of his patent or as a third person defend himself against an alleged infringement of a Community patent.
The Community patent system intends to make patenting of inventions more attractive especially for SMEs which will particularly increase the significance for this group. So far patenting is done in or with effect for individual Member States and the enforcement must take place before the national courts of the respective Member States their national patent law and their national legislation on the court procedure which is particularly cumbersome for SMEs. The Community patent jurisdiction will allow to enforce a unitary patent right valid in the entire Community in one single court procedure operating to common standards.
3. What will business have to do to comply with the proposal?
The effect for businesses will be felt only in cases of litigation over a Community patent. In that case they have to familiarise themselves with the proceedings before the Community patent jurisdiction.
4. What economic effects is the proposal likely to have?
The proposal will only have an economic effect in combination with the other legal instruments creating a Community patent system. The Community patent system as a whole will have a positive economic impact. In particular:
- on investment and the creation of new businesses
The Community patent system will have a positive impact on investments due to a better Community wide legal protection of inventions. The return on investments in innovative technologies will be more secure serving as an incentive for more investment. Moreover, since better legal protection will be rendered less costly, businesses will be able to make more efficient use of their existing budget for research and development which will lead to more inventions which in turn will stimulate investments to economically exploit these inventions. Since effective patent protection often serves as the legal basis for an economically successfully operating business, a more comprehensive, easier and less costly patent protection will promote the creation of new businesses.
- on the competitiveness of businesses
The Community patent system will make patent protection more effective, easier and less costly not only for those businesses that already make use of patent protection but also make patenting more easily accessible for other businesses and in particular for SMEs. The possibility to protect an invention and with it the associated investment into it with Community wide effect will increase the ability of all businesses that make use of this possibility to compete in the common market. Moreover, the competitiveness of European industry will be increased on a global scale compared to the major trading partners and competitors. Today patent protection, for example in the United States or Japan, is considerably less costly than in Europe under the national and the European patent system. Consequently US and Japan based companies can develop patented products at a considerably lower price which later are marketed world wide. The Community patent system intends to eliminate this obstacle for the competitiveness of the European industry.
- on employment
An increased investment in inventive technologies and a strengthened competitiveness of the European industry will lead to the creation of new jobs. The creation of new jobs can be expected across the full range of technical fields and their related industries. In particular the modern, innovative technologies which are playing a steadily increasing role in a knowledge based global economy will benefit.
5. Does the proposal contain measures to take account of the specific situation of small and medium-sized firms (reduced or different requirements etc)?
This does not apply. No distinction according to the size of companies can be made with regard the establishment, the organisation and the procedure before the Statute the Community Patent Court and the Court of First Instance on appeal.
Consultation
6. List the organisations which have been consulted about the proposal and outline their main views:
The necessity to create a patent system covering the Community as a whole has been recognised for decades. The first initiative to create such a system resulted in the European Patent Convention of 5 October 1973 which harmonised the grant of the European patent by the European Patent Office but neither included provisions on the rights conferred by such a patent nor created a single jurisdiction to deal with disputes. This was still left to national legislation and jurisdiction of the Contracting States. In a second initiative, EC Member States tried to create a Community patent on the basis of an international agreement including an integrated jurisdiction. The Community Patent Convention was signed on 15 December 1975 in Luxembourg followed by the 15 December 1989 agreement relating to the Community patent which included a protocol on the settlement of litigation concerning the infringement and validity of Community patents. The Convention however never entered into force. In the context of the Amsterdam European Council of June 1997 (action plan for the single market), the Commission published a green paper on the promotion of innovation by patents. The consultations on the green paper including the comments made in the hearing on 25 and 26 November 1997 showed clear support for the creation of a Community patent system. Finally, the Lisbon European Council in March 2000 took up the issue and called for the creation of a Community patent system. The Council in its 3 March 2003 common political approach reached agreement on a number of key issues of the Community patent system including the jurisdictional aspects calling for the establishment of the Community Patent Court on the basis of Article 225a of the EC Treaty.