Results of Competitiveness Council, Brussels,14th November 2002 Community Patent

November 18, 2002

Brussels, 15 th November 2002

The Council held a further discussion on the main outlines of the future jurisdictional system for the proposed Community Patent (see MEMO/01/451 , IP/00/714 and MEMO/00/41 ). The Community Patent would give inventors the option of obtaining a single patent legally valid throughout the European Union.

The Council had already reached a working arrangement on the basis for compromise on other aspects such as languages, cost and the central role of Munich-based European Patent Office (EPO established under the 1972 European Patent Convention) (see MEMO/0/99).

The Council failed to agree draft conclusions suggested by the Danish Presidency focussing on the jurisdictional arrangements. Internal Market Commissioner Frits Bolkestein underlined that the Commission cannot accept that the proposed central and specialised EU jurisdiction should be watered down.

This is because the Commission is determined that companies using the Community Patent should not have to run the risk of potential legal action before courts in each and every Member State which could adopt divergent interpretations of disputed patents.

After the meeting, Commissioner Bolkestein commented: "I am bitterly disappointed that a year after the deadline set by the Lisbon European Council, today's Council has still proved incapable of agreeing this crucially important initiative.

"Europe's companies are crying out for access to pan-European patent protection at reasonable cost with minimum red-tape and maximum legal certainty."

"The Lisbon Summit itself identified the Community Patent as a vital measure for boosting Europe's competitiveness by encouraging innovation. The failure to agree on the Community Patent undermines the credibility of the whole enterprise to make Europe the most competitive economy in the world by 2010."

"This Council has been renamed as the "Competitiveness Council" and yet when it comes to agreeing measures that would actually make a concrete contribution to improving competitiveness, it has failed to bite the bullet. Instead, there has been an awful lot of talk, much of it about process."

"Let me be absolutely clear. The Commission will not endorse a watered-down Community Patent that industry will not use. We cannot allow such a vital measure to be sacrificed on the altar of petty national interests. I will not agree to a Community Patent that would be a white elephant."

"Unless there is agreement by the Spring 2003 European Council, I will certainly have to consider very carefully the option of withdrawing the proposal."

DN: MEMO/02/255 Date: 15/11/2002

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 3 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

Most Commented

James Fryer illustration (27 July 2017)

It is not Luddism to be cautious about destroying an academic publishing industry that has served us well, says Marilyn Deegan

Jeffrey Beall, associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver

Creator of controversial predatory journals blacklist says some peers are failing to warn of dangers of disreputable publishers

Hand squeezing stress ball
Working 55 hours per week, the loss of research periods, slashed pensions, increased bureaucracy, tiny budgets and declining standards have finally forced Michael Edwards out
Kayaker and jet skiiers

Nazima Kadir’s social circle reveals a range of alternative careers for would-be scholars, and often with better rewards than academia

hole in ground

‘Drastic action’ required to fix multibillion-pound shortfall in Universities Superannuation Scheme, expert warns