Brussels, 07 Nov 2002
1. Following the conclusions reached by the Council (Internal Market, Consumer Affairs, Tourism) on 21 May 2002, the Commission services presented on 30 August 2002 a working document containing detailed suggestions on the jurisdictional arrangements related to the Community patent (doc. 11684/02 ).
2. The above working document has been the basis of discussions in the Working Party on Intellectual Property (Patents) on 20 September 2002 and in the Working Party "Court of Justice" on 20 September, 4 and 14 October 2002, where delegations expressed their preliminary views.
3. The purpose of the present report is to inform the Permanent Representatives' Committee of the outcome of these discussions and to provide a basis for further discussions in this Committee with a view to preparing the deliberations of the next Competitiveness Council on 14-15 November 2002 on this file.
18. On the basis of the discussions at working party level, it is the view of the Presidency that progress can be achieved in respect of the jurisdictional arrangement if solutions can be found on the issue concerning the establishing of regional chambers.
19. The Permanent Representatives' Committee is invited to address in particular the following key issues regarding the structure of the Community Patent Court (CPC) with a view to preparing the deliberations of the Competitiveness Council on the Community patent file:
* The Permanent Representatives' Committee is asked to confirm its agreement on the principle that the Community Patent Court should consist of a central chamber, with its seat in Luxembourg, and regional chambers located in different parts of the Community and being an integral part of the CPC.
* The Permanent Representatives' Committee is further asked to confirm the favourable position of Member States on issues mentioned in paragraphs 4, 5, 9, 11, 14, 15 and 16 on the understanding that an overall agreement on jurisdiction is achieved.
* The Permanent Representatives' Committee is further invited to adress the following questions concerning the timing and criteria for establishing of regional chambers: 1. Do delegations agree that the workload (cases either at CPC or at national courts) should be the main criteria for the establishing of regional chambers irrespective of the timing for setting up a regional chamber?
2. Should other objective criteria such as domicile of the parties be added?
3. Could delegations envisage that a number of regional chambers be established from the outset without excluding the possibility of other regional chambers being established subsequently with due respect of the criteria that can be agreed upon?