IPR, innovation and economic performance

Transcription

1 IPR, innovation and economic performance OECD Conference Paris 28/29 August 2003 Recent changes & expected deveopments in patent regimes: a European perspective Dr. Urich Schatz Former Principa Director Internationa Affairs EPO, Munich E-mai: uschatz@epo.org EPO 2003 Legisative Initiatives since 1999 Intergovernmenta Paris Intergovernmenta Conference of June 1999 EPC revision Conference of November 2000 London Agreement on transation requirements of October 2000 Draft European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) European Community EC proposa for a Reguation on Community Patents August 2000 The Common Poitica Approach to a Community Patent of March

2 Background The faiure of the 1989 Luxembourg Agreement on Community Patents to enter into force transation costs jurisdictiona system The new roe of patents in the goba knowedge economy tota amount of icensing fees paid in 2001: 120 biion Euro patents determine access not ony to product markets but aso to financia markets Background continued The Paris Intergovernmenta Conference of June 1999 recognises that the centraised procedure for the grant of patents (EPC aone) is insufficient to support innovation and competitiveness in Europe sets 4 key objectives: 1. To streamine the EPC procedure so as to master the EPO s workoad 2. to reduce patenting costs 3. to create a European patent itigation system 4. to create the ega basis for the grant of Community patents A. The year 2000 EPC revision Strategic direction: To support innovation, competitiveness an economic growth in Europe (EPO Mission Statement of March 2001) 2

3 EPC 2000 revision continued Scope 97 EPC Artices amended Conformity with TRIPs,, WIPO PLT of May 2000 Substantive patent aw use bound caims for second and further medica uses (Art 54(5)) Equivaents (Protoco on Art 69) EPC 2000 revision continued Institutiona Aigning the EPC on internationa Treaties and/or Community aw by decision of the Administrative Counci (Art 33, 35) Reguar Conferences of Ministers of EPC member states (new Artice 4a) EPC 2000 revision continued Grant Procedure Streamining (e.g. Art 121, 122) New centra imitation procedure (new Artice 105 a & s) Further appea to Enarged Board of appea for ack of due process Designation system abandoned (Art 79) 3

4 BEST Currenty 70% penetration Fu impementation by 2006 EESR + PCT ISO eap in procedura efficiency heps appicants and competitors to manage economic risks B. The London Agreement October 2000 transation of caims ony (if any) cuts costs to ess than 50% the 10 signatory states (CH, DE, DK, FR, GB, LI, LU, NL, SE) represent 66% of the EU s tota GNP! Reasonabe perspective for accession of other EPC member states Why? C. The (draft) European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) Key features: European Patent Judiciary a new, financiay sef supporting Organisation Centra Court of first and second instance but Regiona panes of first instance may be created by any member state or group of states at their own costs 4

5 EPLA continued Regiona panes are cost effective anguage of procedure wi have sufficient number f eases competent experienced nationa judges sit together with judges from other countries (when avaiabe) EPLA continued Draft EPLA exists in treaty anguage Coud readiy be submitted to Dipomatic Conference but France has probems of constitutiona order Excusive competence of European Community? (Counci Reguation on Jurisdiction EC N N 44/2001 of December 2000) EPLA continued Concusion EPLA Patent Judiciary coud become the European equivaent to the US CAFC! European patents in force are waiting for it! 5

6 The Community Patent The Commissions proposa for a Community Patent reguation issued in 2000 The Common Approach of the EC Counci of 3 March 2003 The Common Approach settes 6 controversia issues: jurisdiction transation of CP s amount of CP renewa fees roe of NPO s in the European patent granting procedure sharing of CP renewa fees between EPO and NPO s mutuaisation of costs for transation of appications fied in a anguage other than EPO officia anguage. The Common Approach continued Jurisdiction Centra Community Patent Court of first and second instance, (CPC and CFI) no regiona panes! judges appointed by unanimous decision of EC-Counci! Counci! CPC sits in panes of 3 egay quaified judges 6

7 The Common Approach continued Jurisdiction continued technica experts wi assist the judges throughout the handing of the case (?) anguage of proceedings wi be the anguage of the state where the defendant is domicied!!! CPC to be estabished by 2010 at the atest The Common Approach continued Transation of caims in 18 anguages Transation Average EP 8 designations, 6 transations EUR Average EP + London, 8 designations, 6 transations EUR CP 25 member states, 18 transations of caims EUR The Common Approach continued 7

8 The Common Approach continued The roe of NPO s in the European grant procedure: search NPO s with non-epo officia anguage (15 NPO s) In 2002, 7723 EP appications fied by appicants of the 15 countries in question 2241 thereof by Itaian appicants free choice for appicants between EPO and NPO search EESR by EPO as from 2004 The Common Approach continued NPO s with EPO officia anguage ( Austria( cause ) searches to be subcontracted by the EPO Conditions: NPO must have experience of cooperation with EPO NPO needs to maintain critica mass Concusions and Out-ook Absoute priority for CP EPC enabing revision first haf of 2004 London Agreement ratification by France uncertain London Agreement shadows CP EPLA Is said to infringe excusive Community competence in matters of jurisdiction (EC reguation 44/2001) 8

9 WHAT REMAINS? A Community Patent Court of yet unknown composure and quaity sitting on a yet unknown, perhaps mainy pharmaceutica number of cases? First case by the year 2010, or...? That may not be what the European economy needs, nor what it deserves! 9