Diff for "GemeenschapsOctrooi"

Differences between revisions 4 and 5

Gebaseerd op:

1.1 Bent u het eens met deze opsomming van basiskenmerken voor het octrooisysteem?

DieterVanUytvanck vertaalt het antwoord op 1.1

(Het gaat om volgende lijst:

duidelijke materiële rechtsregels over wat wel en wat niet door octrooien kan worden beschermd, waarbij de belangen van de octrooihouders moeten worden afgewogen tegen de algemene doelstellingen van het octrooisysteem;
transparante, kosteneffectieve en toegankelijke procedures voor het aanvragen van octrooi;
voorspelbare, snelle en goedkope procedures voor de beslechting van geschillen tussen octrooihouders en andere partijen;
voldoende aandacht voor andere belangen van het overheidsbeleid, zoals concurrentie (anti-trustmaatregelen), ethiek, milieu, gezondheidszorg en toegang tot informatie, zodat het octrooisysteem efficiënt kan functioneren en een geloofwaardige plaats in de samenleving kan innemen.

)

The most basic feature of the patent system is that we should only consider to apply it where required in order to guarantee continued or increased innovation, and prevent its expansion in areas where it is counterproductive. Substantive rules and due regard for other interests are means which can be used to guarantee this feature, but are only secondary to this goal. Only afterwards tertiary features such as costs and litigation enter the picture.

Our main concern is that there is too much focus on secondary and tertiary features at this time, which does not help if the assumed raison d'être of the patent system is ignored. For example, the definition of patentable subject matter keeps being expanded, and attempting to codify this expansion in "clear rules" (as with the software patents directive) does not help against this worrying evolution.

We therefore think that focussing on aspects of the patent system and improving these on their own is a wrong approach, and that a higher level innovation policy is required. Patent policy is only one part of such an innovation policy, and all modifications to the patent system should be done based on said innovation policy. 1.2 Zijn er nog andere kenmerken die volgens u belangrijk zijn? The main feature of the patent system should be that the patent system itself is only a (small) feature of a larger innovation strategy. We would like to see more assurance that the mechanisms of the patent system produce "good" patents, i.e. patents which are needed by the market and by society. We would like to see clearer exclusion of subject matter for areas where patents have not been demonstrated to generate innovation.

We would like to see the burden of proof moved to those who seek to extend the patent system, rather than those who are affected by patents. We would like to see proportionality in the patent system so that highly lucrative and long-term patents cannot be claimed for innovations that are cheap to produce or for which the chance of independent rediscovery is very high. Limiting the patent system to "applied natural science", as was the case traditionally, is a good rule of the thumb to avoid such problems.

A stronger institutional role of competition policy authorities provides checks&balances to the patent system. Patents are restrictions of competition in order to achieve policy goals such as to incite innovation. The current administrative rule of the patent system does not take into account anti-competitive effects but usually sides with the interests of the users. Competition policy authorities should also get enabled to file invalidation lawsuits or oppositions against questionable patents which distort competition, esp. where affected individual market players cannot afford to oppose them (opposition market failure). 1.3 Hoe kan de Gemeenschap bij de ontwikkeling van haar octrooibeleid beter rekening houden met de bredere belangen van de samenleving? Currently, patent policy is mainly formed by:

The patent offices. Especially in case of the European Patent Organisation, the situation is worrying. Its Administrative Council can change the "Implementing Regulations", as well as Parts II to VIII and Part X of the European Patent Convention, thereby taking on the role of legislator. Additionally, TBAs and EBA of the European Patent Office take on the role of judiciary by changing the interpretation of the EPC.
Civil servants with close ties to the patent system. In general, the people sitting on the EPO's Administrative Council are also involved with the member state patent offices, and are also the primary advisors to legislators regarding patent law (e.g. most of these people sit on the Council's "Working Party on Intellectual Property (Patents)" where they draft legislation, and they also advise governments how to vote on the proposals they write).
The largest customers of the patent system, who keep trying to push the boundaries of what is patentable and what is not further and further, and even sit on the "Standing Advisory Committee" to the EPO (SAPECO). The Commission proposal of the software patents directive was also written in close cooperation with these companies and their representative organisations, without involvement of others.

The best way to take into account the public interest would be to

Clearly separate the legislative, judiciary and executive tasks in the patent system. As a consequence, do not adopt Community law based on case law developed by an executive office with its own judiciary, which even cannot be appealed at a Community Court (because that executive office is not part of the Community).
Move away from judicial governance to economic governance with full respect of a legislative mandate.
Open up patent policy making process to society at large as opposed to entrenched and self interested (software) patent rightsholders. Strenthem transparency of the Council working group. Strengthen oversight of competition policy authorities.
Keep in mind that the patent system is but one tool available in innovation policy making, and one which should only be applied when appropriate and not at will ("more patents" is not the same as "more innovation", and in various situations can actually result in less innovation).
Encourage more economic research

2.1 Zijn er ten opzichte van de gemeenschappelijke politieke benadering andere of aanvullende kenmerken die u voor een doeltreffend Gemeenschapsoctrooisysteem belangrijk acht?

JasperHarms vertaalt het antwoord op 1.1

The most important point is to separate the executive, legislative and judicial powers which are all currently performed by the EPO to some extent, as mentioned above. This implies that the EPO's TBAs/EBA case law must not form the basis of community law, otherwise we discard the current patent laws and their interpretations by national judges in all member states. Even the UK, whose case law is closest to the EPO's case law, is still quite a bit more strict than the EPO.

The European Community should not accede to the European Patent Convention in a way which hands over full authority on granting Community patents to a non-Community body (namely the EPO and it's TBAs and EBA). Special care has to be taken too, that accession to the EPC does not lead to Community law made by the EPO, bypassing the Community's constituting treaties, bypassing the European Commission and Parliament.

For the Netherlands and other countries, the Community Patent will also introduce retroactive liability. The Community Patent thereby will make it profitable to apply for broad, vague and trivial patents, with goal of sending out infringement notices after some years. Since going to court will often be too expensive, SMEs will have to pay. The result: the Community Patent will make legal extortion profitable.

Belgium already has retroactive liability, but for a shorter period. The currently proposed retroactive period is longer than the one in force in the US. It is ironic that abuse and extortion of this retroactive period has led to a call for reform in the US, while Europe is in danger of going even further on this point.

3.1 Wat zijn volgens u de voor- en nadelen van een pan-Europese geschillenregeling volgens de EPLA voor de gebruikers van octrooien en andere belanghebbenden?

If the EPLA were to enforce the high-quality patents defined by EPC article 52, this could have a positive impact. If the EPLA were to enforce the EPO TBA case law (and thus enforce software and business method patents), the results would be catastrophic.

After all, the current "legal uncertainty" regarding software patents keeps various litigants at bay and is partially responsible for the absence of a US like litigation climate in Europe. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that many software patent lawsuits are filed in the UK (Trading Technologies vs various makers of software for stock exchanges, NTP vs RiM), where case law is closest to the EPO case law.

3.2 Wat is volgens u het ideale systeem voor de beslechting van octrooigeschillen, aangezien in Europa mogelijk drie soorten octrooien naast elkaar zullen bestaan (nationale octrooien, Gemeenschapsoctrooien en Europese octrooien)?

It should be possible to litigate a Community patent before a Community court, based on Community law made by Community legislators (and not by an unaccountable TBA or EBA of the EPO). This court should be independent of any Community or other Patent Office.

Regarding national patents, the most logical decision is to keep the possibility to have them litigated in national courts. This is convenient in terms of geography, language, and culture. Given that European Patents are more or less collections of national patents, at least the possibility to go to a national court should be kept.

The most important feature is that it must always be possible to appeal to a court which is not bound by case law of the executive (the various patent offices), since such judicial independence is a basic requirement of our justice system.

4.1 Welke aspecten van het octrooirecht leiden volgens u tot belemmeringen voor het vrije verkeer of tot concurrentieverstoringen als gevolg van verschillen tussen de wettelijke regels van de lidstaten of de wijze waarop die regels in de praktijk worden toegepast?

Software and business method patents give rise to significant trade barriers and distortions of competition within the EU. In some member states, such as Poland, these patents are not granted and appeals to rejections based on subject matter are consistently turned down by courts. In other member states, such as the UK, granting practice and case law follows the EPO practice more closely. This puts British companies operating in Poland at a competitive disadvantage and acts as a trade barrier when Polish companies try to enter the UK market.

4.2 In welke mate ondervindt uw onderneming hiervan de gevolgen?

Software and business method patents mean that producers and consumers of software are exposed to arbitrary litigation when they export their services to another EU country. Our business is affected in that we are unable to determine accurately whether our products and services are "legal" in other member states, so we are exposed to a significant and unmanageable risk if we decide to export.

There is also no insurance available for software patent infringement, and experience of e.g. Miller Insurance Services Ltd has shown that the reason for this is the fact that it is impossible for a company to provide a profitable insurance service in the current patent granting climate. (See: http://www.softwarepatenten.be/faq.html#16)

4.3 Hoe schat u de meerwaarde en haalbaarheid in van de hierboven beschreven benaderingen (1 t/m 3)?

1) opname van de belangrijkste octrooieerbaarheidscriteria van het Europees Octrooiverdrag in het Gemeenschapsrecht, zodat de nationale rechter het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Gemeenschappen om uitleg kan vragen. Het zou hierbij kunnen gaan om algemene criteria zoals nieuwheid, uitvinderswerkzaamheid en industriële toepasbaarheid, alsook om uitzonderingen voor specifieke onderwerpen en om bepaalde bedrijfstakspecifieke regels met een meerwaarde;

2) een vrij beperkte harmonisatie ten aanzien van vraagstukken die in het Europees Octrooiverdrag niet uitdrukkelijk zijn geregeld;

3) wederzijdse erkenning van in andere EU-lidstaten verleende octrooien door de octrooibureaus, eventueel gekoppeld aan een onderling overeengekomen kader van kwaliteitsnormen of aan een "validatie" door het Europees Octrooibureau, op voorwaarde dat het octrooischrift in de oorspronkelijke taal en een andere in het bedrijfsleven gebruikelijke taal beschikbaar is.

We notice that the "subject matter" criterium is missing from the list in point 1. Subject matter is a critical criterium, since it is on this basis that the EPO has granted tens of thousands of software and business process patents. The three options 1-3 are all unclear with respect to the rules on subject matter, and the question of whether EPO TBAs' case law overrides the EPC and interpretations of national courts, or not.

Regarding option 3 in particular, mutual recognition by patent offices of patents granted by another EU Member State opens the possibility that applicants start to shop around to find the patent office that most readily grants their applications. The Community Patent is intended to reduce forum shopping, but this option would actually increase that problem.

A recodification of EPC 52 substantive patent law exclusions and further clarifications are needed to

prevent the enforcement of software patents and business method patents granted by the EPO within the European Community.
enable control of the European Union over the EPO patent pratice which will be forced to review its policy
reinstall political governance of the patent system

4.4 Zijn er andere benaderingen die de Commissie zou kunnen overwegen?

All proposals must come back to the basic question: does the system guarantee good patents, transparency, and accountability?

Further the EU has to prevent that EPC 52 exclusions will get weakened by further international substantive patent law harmonisation, trilateral diplomatic negotiations or TRIPs reform. Therefore the European Union has to make sure that parliaments may exercise their full control over diplomatic negotiations by the EU or member states.

As long as the problem with EPO software patents prevails the EU shall seek to strengthen Interoperability by legislative safeguards to indemnify affected software producers and E-Commerce.