The Community patent and the patent system in Europe, with evidence / House of Lords, Select committee on the European Communities.

  • Great Britain. Parliment. House of Lords. Select Committee on the European Communities.
Date:
1998
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: The Community patent and the patent system in Europe, with evidence / House of Lords, Select committee on the European Communities. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    38/144 (page 6)
    Lord Goodhart 14. I was going to raise this point. Is there any current institutional relationship between the EPO and the Community? (Dr Reid) Not an institutional one, as far as I know. There are very good communications. Chairman 15. Does not the Community have observer status on the EPO Supervisory Board? (Dr Reid) Yes. (Professor Adams) There is quite a complex relationship. For example, the possibility of amending on biotechnology, the Convention itself is very slight. However, by other means, the European Commission have promulgated a Directive on Biotechnology, which achieves the objectives of the European Patent Office indirectly. So they do work in harmony. (Dr Reid) There is no institutional link other than this observer status, which I think is correct. Lord Goodhart 16. Does that mean that the Commission have refrained from exercising powers up until now over patents? (Dr Reid) No. Very much not so. I think, correctly, they have perceived patents as very important in the whole sphere of innovation. There were Community initiatives, for instance, on the extension of the supplementary protection certificates for pharmaceuticals. Professor Adams has mentioned the Biotechnology Directive. There are proposals in the Green Paper on software patentability. All of this fits with the pattern that if there is a Community Directive—I am not sure this should be recorded quite as bluntly—but one can then expect Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Monaco to adjust their laws accordingly and support the necessary change in European Patent Office procedure, law, practice, whatever is necessary. Lord Plant of Highfield 17. If we did move from the European patent to a Community patent, and given that there are only three countries outside the Community which are members of the EPO, would the EPO remain a viable framework or would those three countries be likely to revert to a national patent system? Switzerland, Monaco and Liechtenstein are rather diverse and in two cases very small countries. Would they be likely to continue to support a framework of that sort? (Dr Reid) 1 would expect them not to be confronted with a choice, because most voices urge strongly that a Community system would make use of what is already established through the European Patent Convention—that is, the European Patent Office—and specifically the European Patent Office would be the mechanism for granting the Community patent and the two could run in parallel. So that for Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Monaco, the same patents: the European Community patent on the one part, and Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Monaco separately on the other. It should work like that. That seems a fairly obvious choice. Chairman 18. The Community patent. (Dr Reid) The Community patent has the very great advantage of potentially getting uniform application in Europe for patents. It must be very attractive to the Commission and, I would suspect, to industry. I would also suspect to consumers because it would stimulate innovation. You would not have holes in the system. At the moment, with these bundles of national patents, a fairly high proportion of them do not cover all the states of the European Union, so you have disparity of protection. We would also, even from a research body’s point of view, enthuse about the opportunity of getting a simpler litigation system in place. It does not necessarily follow from the proposals but without that I do not think a unitary patent system would be used. 19. We will come back to the litigation system in a moment but essentially, instead of having a bundle you will have a package, you will have the whole single patent covering the whole Community. (Dr Reid) Yes, and I suppose the biggest point we are making in our submission, that does not seem to be made as strongly elsewhere, is that it is consumers who would benefit from a more effective patent system. At the end of the day it is we, as consumers, who benefit from innovation; and innovation is hindered if there is an incompetent or inefficient patent system. The other side of the coin is that patents may be granted on inadequate inventions; ones that really do not contribute. This is because the other side of any patent is its effect on competition. You do not want ordinary developments in any particular trade or industry to be hindered by the patent system, so there has to be a quid pro quo of something of value being contributed by the patentee. That is, of course, the principle of the system and one that is applied reasonably well by the European Patent Office. Their examination occasionally elicits criticism, but basically does test a level at which one would say “this does merit a patent”. Lord Borrie 20. Who would do that work under a European Community patent? (Dr Reid) It could be spread about in the sense that existing patent offices, national patent offices which examine, could do part of it; but the automatic response in the trade in our speciality world is that the European Patent Office would do it. 21. If I may follow that up, this suggests that if the administration is as of now, but that the patent will be covering 15 countries in the near future and more in due course, this seems a much more efficient system than the bundle you described which quite often, because of cost if for no other reason, means perhaps