Polish MEP and inventor Adam Gierek asks Commission about EPO case law

April 14, 2006

Brussels, 13 Apr 2006

Professor Adam Gierek MEP has asked the Commission whether it still thinks that the case law of the European Patent Office (EPO) should be apply to the Community Patent. He refers to the fact that the European Parliament rejected the EPO's case law regarding software patents, a discrepancy between EPO and national patent office practice, and also to several recent court decisions in the UK.

He is worried that the EPO's practice is discrediting the patent system as a whole. Professor Gierek is an inventor himself, with many patents on his name.

The Question

    A patent system can play a fundamental role in establishing an appropriate legal status for innovations and ensuring that their originators are properly rewarded. I am concerned about European Patent Office (EPO) practices which are undermining the social acceptability of the patent system, with patents being granted for solutions that are not patentable under the current law.

    Fortunately, the courts in the Member States are making use of their right to rescind patents granted by the EPO for software and business methods. The difference in approach between the EPO and, for example, the Polish patent office is illustrated by the fact that the latter has for months been refusing to grant two patents to applicants granted patents by the EPO. To date, the Polish courts have upheld these decisions.

    Recently, the High Court of England and Wales ruled that two patents granted by the EPO were invalid on UK territory and emphasised the need for computer programs to be excluded from the scope of patent law even in cases where the use of a program produces a physical effect.

    Before the vote held in the European Parliament on 6 July 2005, the rapporteur, Michel Rocard, said that 'rejection [of the directive] is a message directed at the European Patent Office. The European Parliament has refused to ratify the recent judicial errors by extending the scope of patentability to certain software programs'. However, the EPO has not heeded that message and has not changed its practices.

    Given the above, does the Commission still stand by the position set out in point 2.3.2 of the proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community patent ( COM(2000) 412 final - 2000/0177(CNS) ), namely that the case law which the EPO developed for the European patent will apply to the Community patent?

Background information

Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure -- FFII
Item source

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 6 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Assistant Professorship in Behavioural Science LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS & POLITICAL SCIENCE LSE
Foundation Partnerships Officer LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS & POLITICAL SCIENCE LSE

Most Commented

James Fryer illustration (8 September 2016)

Some lecturers will rightly encourage forms of student interaction that are impossible for those covering their faces, Eric Heinze argues

University of Oxford students walking on campus

University of Oxford snatches top spot from Caltech in this year’s World University Rankings as Asia’s rise continues

Handwritten essay on table

Universities must pay more attention to the difficulties faced by students, says Daniel Dennehy

Theresa May entering 10 Downing Street, London

The prospect of new grammar schools on the horizon raises big questions for HE, writes Nick Hillman

Nosey man outside window

Head of UK admissions service Mary Curnock Cook addresses concerns that universities might ‘not hear a word’ from applicants