Talk:European Patent Litigation Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Constitutional problems

"France may also have constitutional problems to sign and ratify such a far-reaching agreement."

Is there more information about that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.0.225.179 (talk • contribs) .

See for instance "IPR, innovation and economic performance OECD Conference" Paris 28/29 August 2003, page 5, second slide of http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/58/12594736.pdf (presentation by Dr. Ulrich Schatz, Former Principal Director International Affairs, EPO, Munich). Unfortunately the slide does not say why there might be such kind of problem in France. You may wish to contact Dr. Ulrich Schatz to know more about this. --Edcolins 20:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burden on competitiveness

It is highly speculative to say "the situation is a burden on the competitiveness of the European economy" since there is virtually no proof at all patents contribute to the economy. Scientists have made just the opposite suggestion on the cost issue (e.g. Dietmar Harhoff), that the more expensive the patents, the better for the economy ("polluter pays principle"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.193.162.190 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Case law

Is there any link between the actual caselaw created by the EPO/Board of Appeal and the future European Patent Court? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.193.162.190 (talk • contribs) .

A decision of a Board of Appeal of the EPO is only binding on to the department whose decision was appealed, in so far as the facts are the same (for more on this see: Binding character of decisions of Boards of Appeal of the EPO). The EPO Boards of Appeal and the European Patent Court would be judicially independent:
EPLA
Article 5 Judicial independence
"The European Patent Court, its judges and the Registrar shall enjoy judicial independence. In their decisions, the judges shall not be bound by any instructions and shall comply only with the provisions of [the EPLA]." [1]
EPC
Article 23(3) EPC Independence of the members of the Boards
"In their decisions the members of the Boards shall not be bound by any instructions and shall comply only with the provisions of [the EPC]." [2]
However, since the examination of the validity of a European patent before the European Patent Court is conditioned by Article 138 EPC and the substantive provisions referred by this article (Art. 42 Draft EPLA), decisions of the European Patent Court regarding patentability, novelty, inventive step and so on may be influenced by the established case law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO. On the other hand, it may also diverge from the practice of the EPO and from the case law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (in which case this may still be a lack of legal certainty, but to a less geographically diversified extent than today thanks to the centralization on the litigation front). I don't know whether any provision or mechanism exists to avoid this possible split. Take my opinion with a grain of salt anyway, this is a rather complex issue. --Edcolins 13:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language problem

What happens with the language problem in the following case: the EPO grants patent EP123456 in 3 languages (EN, FR, DE), and Sweeden signs the EPLA; what that mean that EP123456, which is not translated in sweedish, would be enfoceable at the Central Court, and thus on the Sweedish territory? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.193.162.190 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Right of EU member states to sign the agreement

From: http://europeanaffairs.org/archive/2003_winter/2003_winter_109.php4 , we can read:

"If at that point the European Commission has not changed its position on the right of EU member states to sign such an agreement, the net result could be a lose-lose situation. With neither a European Patent Court nor a regulation establishing a Community Patent Court, there would be no end in sight for the current unsatisfactory situation in Europe."

Does the European Commission has changed its position? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.193.162.190 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Pro-proponent bias

The article used to mix legal/technical aspects of the EPLA with its political significance/advocacy. Especially in talking of a "european equivalent" to a United States institution -- this implies thinking of Europe as an independent state (which it is not, although the EU/EC comes infinitesimally close (for good or bad)). It is only fair to label advocacy as such and to link to both camps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.206.107.105 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Pro-proponent bias (2)

The quote from McCreevy should really relocate to the "arguments of proponents" section, as a) the said statement is pro-EPLA spin, and b) McCreevy is one of the most prominent proponents anyway. 129.206.107.105 15:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. EPLA is not in the interest of the Commission, politically they want to move forward. EPLA is an EPO project which will give the EU no further say over the planned patent judiciary. What the Commission really needs is the London agreement. A "Patent Strategy for Europe" clearly features a compromise--Podmok 12:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Service

"In February 2007, the Legal Service of the European Parliament apparently prepared a negative interim legal opinion on the EPLA. The opinion concludes that the EPLA, specifically compliance by the Member States of the European Union with Article 98 EPLA, would prima facie constitute a breach of Article 292 of the EC Treaty. "

Why "apparently" prepared? Actually the European Parliament legal service was ordered so by the european Parliament. see the europarl resolution of 13 October. I think the reference to (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/recherche/NoticeDetaillee.cfm?docid=205605&doclang=EN) is very important, for the document as a whole. "Requests that Parliament's Legal Service be asked to provide an interim opinion on EU-related aspects of the possible conclusion of the EPLA by Member States in the light of overlaps between the EPLA and the acquis communautaire and to clarify legislative competences in this field;"--Podmok 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I had added "apparently" because I couldn't find any official source from the European Parliament. It is not clear what is the status of the document. What does "interim" mean in this context? Why can't we find the document on the European Parliament web site? Maybe I haven't searched well enough. I have reworded the sentence with the intention to make this clearer. Feel free to improve. Thanks for your contributions! --Edcolins 19:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
See the resolution text from the EU-Parliament which asks for an interim opinion. It's not that there is a final and an interim opinion but the requested study is named as such. Final verdicts can only be obtained from the ECJ. I also think that the recent EU Com paper "a patent strategy for Europe" should be added. --Podmok 12:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the document published on the European Parliament web site? That is my concern. --Edcolins 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] financial

The 2003 draft agreement provides the creation of a "European Patent Judiciary (EPJ)", a financially autonomous organisation not true, it will be cross-funded, see EPLA provisions --Podmok 22:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed, unsourced statement. --Edcolins 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Needed tags

There seems to be a recent rash of "citation needed" tags all over the "Arguments of critics" section. Sometimes "citation needed" tags are used in a POV way: they are added in unnecessarily large numbers to a section that the editor does not agree with. The effect of this is to suggest that the text of that section is less reliable than the rest of the article. This may not be done intentionally... it is often easier to spot flaws or unwarranted assumptions in an argument that you disagree with than one you support.

Until recently, this section did have quite a number of citations, but many were removed for being "self published" or "original research". By contrast, the "Arguments of proponants" section has very few citations (only one) and yet seems to have escaped the attentions of the citation police.

This imbalance seems to me to be POV. I suggest that both sections be treated equally: either almost every statement of fact should get a "citation needed" tag, or these tags should be used much more sparingly (I would prefer the latter). Also I think that the removed citations should be examined carefully: a source may be self-published, but if it is a website of an organization that opposes this agreement, then surely it is a primary source of "Arguments of critics".

I am minded to revert the "Arguments of critics" section. I think it was better as it was before.

TomH 01:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. General cleanup needed it seems. --Edcolins 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)