| « Poti concedia usor un avocat cu un blog celebru? | Curtea de Casatie Franceza defineste criteriile pe care trebuie sa le indeplineasca "copia privata" » |
Catre o Curte Europeana a Patentelor?
Link: http://www.legalweek.com/ViewItem.asp?id=29823
Conform stirii interesante de aici(din care voi taduce mai pe larg mai jos), Comisia Europeana pare sa isi fi schimbat optica asupra existentei unei Curti Europene a Patentelor,dupa mai mult de o decada de opozitie la infiintarea unei asemenea curti.
Acceptarea ideii infiintarii unei asemenea curti vine dupa o consultare a comisiei cu diferiti reprezentanti ai "industriei" la inceputul acestui an, consultare care a aratat suportul acestora (suport impartasit de judecatori europeni in domeniul brevetelor de inventie)pentru acordul european intitulat European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA)(in format pdf documentul poate fi gasit aici, iar mai multe informatii despre acest acord pot fi gasite aici )
La o audiere cu practicienii din domeniul IP, care a avut loc in 12 Julie, Comisarul European pentru piata interna si servicii, Charlie McCreevy, a "recunoscut" ca EPLA este "un drum promitator catre o jurisdictie mai unitara" adaugind ca "Comisia va analiza posibilitatile de a adopta acest proiect"
Comisia a subliniat de asemenea, ca exista un suport clar pentru adoptarea asa zisului "London Protocol"(Agreement), care propune traducerea cererilor doar in Engleza, Franceza ori Germana, mai degraba decit in toate limbile europene, asa cum propusese initial Comisia.
Comisia s-a opus anterior in mod viguros adoptarii EPLA, propunind in schimb propriul sau proiect legat de brevete din 1997, care prevedea un nou oficiu al brevetelor european care sa fie "supervizat" de CE.
Cu toata schimbarea de directie, Comisia a insistat ca inca exista un larg suport pentru instaurarea unui brevet la nivelul uniunii, desi nu exact in forma propusa de Comisie.
Intr-o desfasurare "adiacenta" celei de mai sus, in 13 Julie Curtea Europeana de Justitie a publicat doua decizii ale sale, in care a declarat ca ordonantele presidentiale transfrontaliere (n.n.-am preferat sa traduc "injunction" care are mai multe sensuri decit acela de "ordonanta presidentiala" prin acest termen, ca fiind cel mai apropiat ca sens de cel in care este folosit termenul
"injunction" in acest context) nu pot fi date in procese legate de incalcarea drepturilor rezultate din brevete.
Deciziile Curtii, in cazurile GAT v LuK (Decizia CE in Cazul G.A.T.-Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG vs. L.u.K.- Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG-Case C-4/03 a fost publicata in OJ C 55, 08.03.2003, p. 14 2003; documentele pertinente referitoare la acest caz,care a privit inregistrarea si validitatea patentelor, in lumina art 16(4) al Conventiei de la Bruxelles,inclusiv decizia curtii, in pagina CE dedicata cazului aici ) sau Roche v Primus si altii( Decizia CE in Cazul-Roche Nederland BV and Others,v Frederick Primus,Milton Goldenberg, etc-Case C-539/03,publicata in OJ C 59, 06.03.2004, p. 11 ; documentele pertinente referitoare la acest caz,care a privit competenta personala a curtilor din diferite state in cazuri de incalcare a unor patente de catre persoane stabilite in diferite state ale Uniunii, in lumina art 6(1) al Conventiei de la Bruxelles,inclusiv decizia curtii, in pagina CE dedicata acestui caz, aici )
au fost centrale acestei dezbateri, si ar fi putut anula orice importanta a discutarii viitoare a unui sistem al brevetelor la nivel european, daca judecatorii Curtii Europene ar fi decis ca sistemul aflat in prezent in vigoare ar fi permis unei curti dintr-un stat european sa puna in executare deciziile sale dincolo de frontierele acestui stat.
The Lawyer are de asemenea o stire despre cele de mai sus, aici, iar o stire de dinaintea inceperii dezbaterii poate fi gasita aici.
1 comment
Altcumva spus - va fi ceva de genul - noi centram, noi dam cu capul :-)
Vezi si articolul mai larg care l-am scris pt edri-gram:
During the EU patent policy hearing on 12 July, the Foundation for a Free
Information Infrastructure (FFII) criticised The European Patent Office
(EPO) and the proposed European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) which
would put the new centralised European Patent Court under EPO control.
FFII considers that EPLA would first of all make any litigation 2-3 times
more expensive (according to EPO itself) bringing an additional burden to
SMEs when enforcing a patent as well as in situations when they must defend
themselves against a patent infringement accusation.
The EPLA would give EPO even more power than it already has. The same people
who are now running the EPO will be in charge of choosing judges for the new
European Patent Court and the same individuals acting as judges will be
allowed to work for the EPO as well.
FFII board member Jonas Maebe said: "We have warned many times about the
dangers of an unaccountable and over-ambitious EPO. Not only has the EPO
changed its own rules to allow software and business method patents, it
became actively involved in EU politics last year when it spent huge amounts
of money to lobby the European Parliament in favour of the software patents
directive."
The European Commission seems to have a contradictory attitude towards this
matter. It has presented EPLA as a way to optimize the European patent
system and Commissioner McCreevy expressed his support for EPLA considering
it a promising route forwards.
On the other hand, in the extended consultation documentation on Patent
Policy, the Commission stated about EPO: " Whilst being basically a patent
granting office, the EPO has ambitions to steer patent policy at European
and international levels. It has a business culture of its own with very
little understanding for what happens in Brussels in a more global context."
Another inconsistent attitude of the Commission is the action of carrying
out a second consultation round, behind the curtain, providing support to
some 600 SMEs known to hold patents or be involved in patent litigation
According to FFII researcher Benjamin Henrion, the Commission promoted its
own SMEs answers and discounted the collective answers provided by FFII
which had used many man days to prepare them and which were supported by
over a thousand SMEs.
Even so, the SMEs targeted by the Commission reached the same conclusions as
the FFII. They saw the danger of legalising software patents through both
the Community Patent and the EPLA enforcement. Therefore, the Commission
discredited their opinion as well considering these SMEs did not understand
the patent system.
The EPO is also criticised for granting patents with too broad a scope thus
creating concerns for free-software advocates who believe that, under EPLA,
more software and business method-type patents will be given.
Concerns were expressed also by the representative of Nokia who expressed
Nokia's worry related to a pan-European litigation process that would be
disruptive for its business, as, generally, the company enforces its patents
one country at a time.
Florian Mueller , the anti-software patent campaigner who was one of those
to address the hearing, predicted that the next step for the Commission
would be to establish if EU needs to be involved in finalising and applying
the EPLA.
FFII statement given at EU patent policy hearing (12.07.2006)
http://wiki.ffii.de/PatHearing060712En
EPO dogmatic, short-sighted and power-hungry, says European Commission
(10.07.2006)
http://wiki.ffii.de/ComEPOPr060710En
Commission Cheats European SMEs in Patent Consultation (10.07.2006)
http://wiki.ffii.de/PatConsultPr060710En
EC begins new pan-European patent love-in (13.07.2006)
http://www.theregister.com/2006/07/13/europe_patent/
Comment feed for this post