RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q3/EEC/1
22October 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-4633)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION INTHE FIELDS OFPATENTS, LAYOUT-DESIGNS
(TOPOGRAPHIES) OFINTEGRATED CIRCUITS, PROTECTION OF
UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AND CONTROL OF
ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES IN
CONTRACTUAL LICENCES
European Communities1
Thepresent document reproduces thequestions puttothedelegation oftheEuropean
Communitiesandtheresponsesgiveninthereviewoflegislationonpatents,layout-designs(topographies)
ofintegrated circuits, protection ofundisclosed information andcontrol ofanti-competitive practices
incontractual licences attheCouncil 'smeeting of26-30 May1997.2
_______________
I. REPLY TOTHE GENERAL QUESTION ONPRIORITY RIGHTS3
Remark: TheEuropean Patent Organisation isaninternational organization withlegalstatus established
bytheEuropean Patent Convention. TheOrganization 'staskistogrant European patents, which is
carried outbytheEuropean Patent Office. Themembership oftheEuropean Patent Organization is
identical tothatoftheEuropean Union (plus Switzerland, Monaco andLiechtenstein).
Doesyourcountry recognize aright ofpriority onthebasis ofanearlier patent application
filedinanyother WTO Member byanational ofaWTO Member?
Yes.
Article 87.1oftheEuropean Patent Convention provides thataperson whohasfiledapatent
application inorforanyState party totheParis Convention, shallenjoy, forthepurpose offiling a
European patent application inrespect ofthesame invention, aright ofpriority during aperiod of
twelve months from thedateoffiling ofthefirstapplication.
Incases where thefirstfiling hasbeen made inaState which isnotaparty totheParis
Convention, Article 87.5oftheEuropean Patent Convention provides thatpriority rights existonly
1Asregards lawsandregulations relevant totheareas under review asnotified bytheEuropean Communities under
Article63.2oftheAgreement ,referenceismade todocument sIP/N/1/EEC/1/Rev.1, IP/N/1/EEC/P/1-3, IP/N/1/EEC/L/1-2.
2Theminutes ofthemeeting have been circulated indocument IP/C/M/13.
3Atthemeeting oftheTRIPS Council of27February 1997, Members agreed torespond tothisquestion inthecontext
ofthepresent review (document IP/C/M/12, paragraph 18).IP/Q3/EEC/1
Page2
insofar asthatState, byvirtue ofbilateral ormultilateral agreements, alsogrants, onthebasis ofa
firstfiling made attheEuropean Patent Office, arightofpriority. TheTRIPS Agreement isconsidered
tobeamultilateral agreement onthebasisofwhich therightofpriority hastobegranted. Accordingly,
theEuropean Patent Office hasalready informed countries which areMembers oftheWTO butnot
oftheParis Convention about thisinterpretation.
II. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYNEW ZEALAND
Preliminary Remark
Thequestions related totheCommunity Patent Agreement are,atthisstage, ofanacademic
nature, since theAgreement hasnotyetentered intoforce.
1. Please advise whether Article 45oftheAgreement onCommunity Patents would apply
ifthepatent lawofasignatory wasinconsistent withArticle 31oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Article 45oftheAgreement ontheCommunity Patents provides thatthepatent lawofeach
Contracting Stateapplies tocompulsory licences granted onthebasisofaCommunity Patent. According
toArticle 65.1oftheTRIPS Agreement, thelawofallMember States oftheEuropean Communities
hadtobecome fullycompatible withtheTRIPS Agreement, including Article 31,from1January 1996.
Since theAgreement onCommunity Patents hasnotyetentered intoforce, thequestion ofgranting
compulsory licences onCommunity Patents hasnotyetoccurred.
2. Please explain howArticles 46and47oftheAgreement onCommunity Patents are
consistent withArticle 31oftheTRIPS Agreement?
Articles 46and47oftheAgreement onCommunity Patents donotdealwithalltheprovisions
which must berespected where compulsory licences aregranted butrelate tothefreemovement of
goods within theSingle Market oftheEuropean Communities. Since theEuropean Communities are
anintegrated economic area, compulsory licences forinsufficiency orabsence ofexploitation inone
Member State cannot begranted iftheproduct isputonthemarket ofanyother Member State in
sufficient quantities tomeetlocaldemand. This, therefore, putsafurther limitation onthepossibility
togrant compulsory licences within theEuropean Communities. Fortherest,Article 45ofthe
Agreement ontheCommunity Patents -which ensures compatibility withtheTRIPS Agreement -applies
(seeanswer toquestion 1).
3. Interms ofArticle 83oftheAgreement onCommunity Patents, please advise which, if
any:
(a) signatories have made reservations; and
(b) ifreservations have been made, whether these have been removed.
Interms ofArticle 83oftheAgreement onCommunity Patents, nosignatory Statehasmade
areservation concerning compulsory licences.IP/Q3/EEC/1
Page3
III. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYJAPAN
1. Inyour country, arethefollowing subject matters protectable bypatent: (1)plants and
animals, and(2)plant andanimal varieties?
Concerning thedetermination ofthepatentability areas, theexceptions andtheregime of
compulsorylicencesareimplementedbytheMemberStatesoftheEuropeanCommunitiesand,therefore,
national patent lawsapply.4
2. Inyour country, istheactofoffering forsaleincluded intheexclusive rights ofpatent?
3. Inyour country, what kinds ofactsarerecognized asexceptions totheexclusive rights
conferred byapatent right?
4. Inyourcountry,inwhichcaseisusewithouttheauthorizationoftherightholderpermitted,
including usebythegovernment orbythird parties authorized bythegovernment?
5. Inyourcountry, howistheobligation under Articles 34.1and34.2oftheTRIPS Agreement
regarding theshiftoftheburden ofproof incivilproceedings forpatent infringement related
toaprocess patent implemented?
Preliminary Remark
Thequestions related totheCommunity Patent Agreement are,atthisstage, ofanacademic
nature, since theAgreement hasnotyetentered intoforce.
6. TheEUitself isobliged toimplement theTRIPS Agreement asaWTO Contracting Party
andhasnotified theCPC ofitsimplementing legislation, which, however, hasnotyetcome into
effect. Inthisrespect, please explain whether itcanbesaidthattheEUitself hasalready
implemented theTRIPS Agreement.
TheEUhasmodified theCommunity legislation inplacetoconform withtheTRIPS Agreement
byaCouncil Decision ofDecember 1994. Various Community instruments wereamended, suchas
theCommunityTrademarkRegulation.Intheareaofpatents,thereareonlytwoCommunityinstruments
inforce, namely theRegulation creating Supplementary Protection Certificates forMedicinal Products
andtheRegulation creating Supplementary Protection Certificates forPlantProtection Products, which
conform withtheTRIPS Agreement. AsfarastheCommunity Patent Convention isconcerned, it
hasnotyetcome intoeffect.
7. Inspite ofthefactthattheEPC asawhole isreferred toinArticle 1.2oftheTRIPS
Agreement implementing legislation (CPC), theEPCapplied byCPCArticle 1(2)hasnotyetbeen
notified totheCouncil forTRIPS. Please explain whether theEPC applied byCPC isalawor
regulation which implements theTRIPS Agreement. Ifso,please explain thereason theEPC
hasnotbeen notified.
TheEuropean Patent Convention isaninternational treaty towhich 18European countries
areContracting Parties (allEUMember States plusSwitzerland, Liechtenstein andMonaco). The
European Communities arenotasignatory orContracting Party oftheEuropean Patent Convention.
TheEuropean Patent Organization, established bytheEuropean Patent Convention, constitutes aspecial
4Thisanswer alsoapplies toquestions 2through 5.IP/Q3/EEC/1
Page4
agreement under Article 19oftheParisConvention andisnotaparty totheWTO/TRIPS Agreement.
Although theEPCissubstantially aligned withmandatory TRIPS provisions, onecanconsier thatthe
EPCisnot,assuch, theimplementing instrument oftheTRIPS Agreement asfarastheCommunities
Member States areconcerned.
8. InthecasethattheCPCisthelaworregulation which implements theTRIPS Agreement,
arethemember countries oftheCPC thesame asthose ofEU? Ifnot,please explain whythe
CPC canbetreated astheimplementing laworregulation oftheTRIPS Agreement ofEU.
Themembership oftheCommunity Patent Convention is,inprinciple, identical totheone
oftheEuropean Union. Atthisstage, however, only12EUMember States aresignatories totheCPC
butfurtherarrangementswillbemadetointegratethethreecountrieswhichhavejoinedtheCommunities
in1995, namely Austria, Sweden andFinland.
9. Article 11(1) oftheParis Convention prescribes "The countries oftheUnion shall, in
conformity withtheir domestic legislation, grant temporary protection ...inrespect ofgoods
exhibited atofficial orofficially recognized international exhibitions heldintheterritory ofany
ofthem". Under Article 2.1oftheTRIPS Agreemeent WTO Members shall comply withthe
Paris Convention andtemporary protection shallbegranted forsuchexhibitions inWTO Member
countries. Please explain theconsistency withEPCArticle 55applied byCPC Article 1(2)onthis
point.
Article 55oftheEuropean Patent Convention provides thatadisclosure oftheinvention is
nottaken intoconsideration fortheapplication ofthenovelty criteria ifitwasduetoorisinconsequence
ofthedisplay oftheinvention atanofficial orofficially recognized international exhibition; itisa
self-contained provision reflecting theprotection accorded toinventions displayed atanofficial or
officially-recognizedinternationalexhibitionwhichisprescribedbyArticle11(1)oftheParisConvention.
However, although Article 11(1) oftheParisConvention limits theobligation togrant suchprotection
toinventions displayed ateligible exhibitions heldinstates which areMembers oftheParis Union.
Article 55EPCdoesnotcontain anylimitation based onthestateinwhich theexhibition takes place.
Itmerely stipulates thattheexhibition must fallwithin theterms intheConvention onInternational
Exhibitions, which doesnotimport anygeographic limitation intotheapplication ofArticle 55(1).
Thus, inventions displayed inanexhibition inaWTO Member State which isnotaMember ofthe
ParisUnion willbecovered byArticle 55,provided theexhibition itselffulfils theconditions laiddown
bytheConvention onInternational Exhibitions -regardless ofwhether theWTO Member State isa
Party tothatConvention ornot.
10. EPC Article 87(5) applied byCPC Article 1(2)prescribes thatapriority right based on
anapplication made inaState which isnotaContracting Party totheParis Convention, is
enjoyable, sofarasthestate affords apriority right based onanapplication made intheEPO
oritsContracting State. Please explain thetreatment fortheabove non-Paris Contracting State
inaWTO Member country. Inthecasewhere thepriority right isnotgranted, please explain
theconsistency withthemost-favoured-nation clause ofArticle 4oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Under Article 87(5) EPC, therecognition bytheEPO ofapriority right based onafirst
application made inanon-Paris Union stateisnotautomatic, butdepends onthatstateaffording a
priority righthaving equivalent effect based onafirstfiling attheEPOorinanyoftheContracting
States. However, thetreatment ofapplications having beenfirstfiledinaWTO Member Statewhich
hasimplemented theTRIPS Agreement without becoming aMember oftheParisConvention willpose
noproblem. Pursuant toArticle 2.1oftheTRIPS Agreement, WTO Members arerequired tocomply
withArticles 1-12and19oftheParis Convention. Consequently, theywillhavetoafford apriority
right equivalent tothatofArticle 4BoftheParis convention (including forfirstfilings attheEPOIP/Q3/EEC/1
Page5
orinanyEPCContracting State), which willleadtothenotification bytheAdministrative Council
oftheEPOoftherecognition ofpriority forafirstfiling inthatstateaccording tothemechanism of
Article 87(5). TheEPOwrote totheWTO Member States concerned inJuly1995, butasnoresponse
hasyetbeenreceived from them, nofurther action hasyetbeentaken under Article 87(5).
11. EPCArticle106(1)appliedbyCPCArticle1(2)prescribesthatrevocationbytheOpposition
Division shallbereviewed byanappeal board. Please explain thelegalbasis onwhich suchreview
byanappeal board isequivalent tojudicial review under Article 32oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Article 32oftheTRIPS Agreement refers todecisions revoking ordeclaring theforfeiture
ofapatent which emanate fromajudicial authority oncethegranting procedure hasbeensuccessfully
completed.Inthiscontext,Article106(1)EPCisincompliancewithArticle32oftheTRIPSAgreement
since theBoards ofAppeal provide foranopportunity forjudicial review. Interalia,theyhavethe
necessary qualities ofindependence; theyarenotsubject toinstructions from thePresident, the
Administrative Council oranyother authority; theirMembers havetenure; theymustbeimpartial,
independent oftheparties andofthedecision appealed for;theyhavepowers toobtain sworn evidence
and,finally, theyhanddown written decisions containing reasons. BoththeUnited Kingdom 'sPatents
ActandtheHouse ofLords5havereferred totheBoards ofAppeal asacourt, providing anopportunity
forjudicial review within themeaning ofArticle 32oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Furthermore, Article 62.5oftheTRIPS Agreement requires thatfinaladministrative decisions
inprocedures fortheacquisition ofrights, aswellasinterpartes procedures fortheopposition or
revocation ofpatents besubject toreview byajudicial orquasi-judicial authority. Article 62.5deals
inaspecific manner withthereview ofdecisions leading totheacquisition andmaintenance ofapatent
righthanded down within thecontext ofthegranting procedure. Thesituation existing within theEPO,
where theBoards ofAppeal constitute -attheveryleast-aquasi-judicial authority, isclearly covered
byArticle 62.5.
12. EPC Article 167(2) applied byCPC Article 1(2)prescribes thateachContracting State
mayreserve theright toprovide that"European patents, insofar astheyconfer protection on
(a)chemical,pharmaceuticalorfoodproductsthemselves,(b)agriculturalorhorticulturalprocesses
other thanthose towhich Article 53(b) applies, shall beineffective orrevocable." Isthere any
State whoreserves theabove right? Isthere anypossibility thattheStates whoaretobecome
Member countries inthefuture willbepermitted toreserve theright? Inthatcase, please explain
theconsistency withArticle 27.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Given thatperiods under Article 167(3) EPCaretobecalculated from thedateofentering
intoforce oftheEPCitself, i.e.from7October 1977, notonlyhaveinitial reservations expired, but
future reservations bynewcontracting states areimpossible. Article 167(3) EPCistherefore obsolete
andtheEPCisinfullcompliance withArticle 27.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
13. EPC Article 167(2) applied byCPC Article 1(2)prescribes thateachContracting State
mayreserve theright toprovide that"(c)European patents shallhaveatermshorter thantwenty
years, inaccordance withtheprovisions applicable tonational patents." Isthere anyState which
reserves sucharight? Isthere anypossibility thatStates which aretobemember countries in
thefuture willbepermitted toreserve theright? Inthatcase, please explain theconsistency with
TRIPS Article 33.
5SeeMerrel Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.andAnr. v.H.N. Norton &Co.Ltd.1996 R.P.C. 76,at82.IP/Q3/EEC/1
Page6
Theonlystatewhich evermade areservation under Article 167(2)(c) wasAustria andithas
since aligned paragraph 28(1) ofitsPatent Actinorder toreflect a20-year term. Asexplained in
theanswer toquestion 12,Article 167EPCisobsolete, rendering anyfuture reservation astopatent
termimpossible, thusensuring conformity withtheEPConthispoint withArticle 33oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
14. CPC Article 25(a)(c) doesnotseem toconfer anexclusive right withregard to"offering
forsale". Please explain theconsistency withArticle 28.1(a) oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Article 25(a)CPCrefers tothepatentee 'ssolerightof"making, offering, putting onthemarket
orusing aproduct" which isthesubject-matter ofthepatent aswellas"importing orstocking theproduct
forthesepurposes". Article 25covers anyformofcommercial dealing inorexploitation ofthepatented
invention. "Offering forsale" fallssquarely within thepurview oftheterm"offering"; thisterm
encompasses offering forsale,butalsooffers made foranycommercial purpose, suchaslease, hire,
mortgage, oruseofthepatented invention.
15. CPC Article 27(d) (e)prescribes thattherights conferred byaCommunity patent shall
notextend totheuseofthepatented invention when vessels, aircraft orlandvehicles temporarily
oraccidentally enter theterritory ofContracting States. Itseems thatthisArticle shallbeapplied
onlytosuchvehicles oftheContracting States oftheParis Convention. Does thismean thatthis
Article isnotapplicable toWTO Member countries which arenotParis Contracting States? If
not,please explain theconsistency withthemost-favoured-nation clause ofArticle 4oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
Article 27(d) CPCprovides foralimitation intherights conferred byaCommunity Patent;
suchlimitations arenottobeconsidered as"anyadvantage, favour, privilege orimmunity granted
byaMember". Article 4oftheTRIPS Agreement istherefore notapplicable inthisinstance.
16. According toCPCArticle 29(1), "The applicant shallfilewiththeEuropean Patent Office
within thetimelimit prescribed intheImplementing Regulations atranslation oftheclaims on
which thegrant oftheEuropean patent istobebased inoneoftheofficial languages ofeach
oftheContracting States which doesnothaveEnglish, French orGerman asanofficial language".
Howmany official languages existnow? Please explain whether thenumber ofofficial languages
is"reasonable" asprovided inArticle 62oftheTRIPS Agreement, which requires thatMembers
comply withreasonable procedures andformalities.
Atpresent, there are11official languages intheEuropean Union. According toCPC
Article 29(1), theapplicant shallfileatranslation oftheclaims inoneoftheofficial languages ofeach
Contracting Statewhich doesnothaveEnglish, French orGerman asanofficial language. Since the
European Union isaregional organization containing 15Member States which allhaveequal rights,
itisdeemed tobenecessary tohavethisrequirement oftranslation.
17. According toCPC Articles 46and47,"Acompulsory licence maynotbegranted fora
Community patent ontheground oflackorinsufficiency ofexploitation iftheproduct covered
bythepatent, which ifmanufactured inaContracting State, isputonthemarket intheterritory
ofanyother Contracting State, forwhich suchalicence hasbeenrequested, insufficient quantity
tosatisfy needs intheterritory ofthatother Contracting State". Iftheproduct covered bythe
patent, which ismanufactured outside theContracting State, isputonthemarket intheterritory
ofaContracting State inwhich acompulsory licence hasbeen requested insufficient quantity
tosatisfy needs intheterritory oftheContracting State, isitpossible thatacompulsory licence
maybegranted? Ifso,please explain theconsistency withthemost-favoured-nation clause of
Article 4oftheTRIPS Agreement.IP/Q3/EEC/1
Page7
Article 45oftheAgreement ontheCommunity Patents provides thatthepatent lawofeach
Contracting Stateapplies tocompulsory licences granted onthebasisofaCommunity Patent. According
toArticle 65.1oftheTRIPS Agreement, thelawofallMember States oftheEuropean Communities
hadtobecome fullycompatible withtheTRIPS Agreement, including Article 27,from1January 1996.
Therefore, when aproduct protected byapatent ismanufactured inanyWTO country andisputon
themarketintheterritoryofaContractingStateinsufficientquantitytosatisfylocalneeds,acompulsory
licence should notbegranted. However, sincetheAgreement onCommunity Patents hasnotyetentered
intoforce, thequestion ofgranting compulsory licences onCommunity Patents hasnotyetoccurred.
[Follow-up question from theRepublic ofKorea]
Initsreply toquestion 17posed byJapan, theCommission oftheEuropean Communities
states thatacompulsory licence should notbegranted, when aproduct protected byapatent
ismanufactured inanyWTO country andisputonthemarket intheterritory ofaContracting
State insufficient quantity tosatisfy localneeds. Please explain thebasis orcriteria todetermine
"sufficient quantity" andidentify "local needs."
Thisfollow-up question isposed intheContext oftheCommunity Patent Convention, an
international treaty signed bymostMember States oftheEuropean Union butnotyetentered intoforce.
SincetheCPChasnotyetenteredintoforce,thequestionofgrantingcompulsorylicencesonCommunity
Patents hasnotyetoccurred. Inanycase, theevaluation ofthe"sufficient quantity tosatisfy local
needs" would bedetermined onacase-by-case basis, taking intoaccount theparticularities ofthecase,
bytheauthority competent toissue compulsory licences (patent office orcourt).
18. Please explain whether CPC Article 55,which provides fortheobligation ofsecurity for
thecostoftheproceedings when thenon-resident within theterritory ofoneoftheContracting
States request forrevocation, isconsistent withtheobligations ofnational treatment asrequired
byArticle 3oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Article 55CPCprovides anopportunity forthepatent holder torequire fromtheperson who
started thejudicial proceedings togiveasecurity ofthecostsoftheproceedings .Thisisnotageneral
requirement imposed onallnon-residents within theterritory ofoneoftheContracting States butis
anoption lefttothepatent holder inorder toensure thatjudicial proceedings arenotinitiated ina
deliberately non-justified manner.
19. Itisunderstood thattheissueofexhaustion ofintellectual property rights shallbesubject
tothenational treatment clause ofArticle 3oftheTRIPS Agreement andmost-favoured-nation
treatmentclauseofArticle4oftheTRIPSAgreement.Arethereanydifferentialtreatmentsbetween
ECMembers andnon-EC Members withrespect totheissue oftheexhaustion ofpatent rights?
Ifyes,please explain whysuchdifferential treatment isjustifiable under theTRIPS Agreement.
Theprinciple ofnational treatment inArticle 3oftheTRIPS Agreement, andmost-favoured-
nation treatment inArticle 4oftheTRIPS Agreement shallnotapply totheprinciple ofCommunities
exhaustion ofpatent rights, since thelatter principle cannot beconsidered asan"advantage, favour,
privilege orimmunity" butisrather alimitation orrestriction totherights conferred bythepatent.
Theprinciple ofCommunities exhaustion isapplicable toallpersons andcompanies (ECorotherwise)
holding apatent within theEuropean Communities.IP/Q3/EEC/1
Page8
20. Please explain howundisclosed information isprotected inyourcountry, asrequired by
Article 39.2oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Article 39oftheTRIPS Agreement provides thatpersons shallhavethepossibility ofpreventing
information lawfully within theircontrol frombeing disclosed to,acquired by,orusedbyothers without
theirconsent inamanner contrary tohonest commercial practices. Theprotection of"commercial
practices" isasubject which belongs tothecompetence oftheMember States oftheECandnotto
theCommunities themselves. Thisprovision oftheTRIPS Agreement istherefore implemented within
theECbyeachMember State oftheEuropean Communities.
IV. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
1. Please identify theissues within thefieldofpatent laworpatent enforcement thatliewithin
thecompetence oftheEuropean Communities, rather thanwithin thecompetence oftheMember
States. Inyour answer, please indicate thelegal basis forsuch competence, anddescribe the
measures thathave been successfully implemented andthatareineffect inauniform fashion
throughout theMember States oftheEuropean Communities.
According totheCourt ofJustice oftheEuropean Communities (Opinion 1/94 of
15November 1994), theCommunities andtheirMember States hadshared competence toconclude
theTRIPS Agreement. Thismeans thatboththeCommunities andtheirMember States havethe
possibility tolegislate intheareaofpatents andindustrial property ingeneral. ButoncetheCommunities
havelegislated inonespecific area, theMember States arenolonger freetolegislate ortoderogate
fromCommunity law. Atthisstage, twoCommunity instruments intheareaofpatents areinforce:
Regulation 1768/92 onthecreation ofsupplementary protection certificates formedicinal products
andRegulation 1610/96 onthecreation ofsupplementary protection certificates forplant protection
products. There alsoexists newpatent legislation indraftform, which istheproposal foradirective
onthelegalprotection ofbiotechnological inventions. Theprinciple pointed outabove applies equally
totheenforcement ofpatents.
2. Please indicate thelegalstatus oftheCommunity Patent Convention within theEuropean
Communities. Please alsoexplain whether anydevelopments have occurred thatarelikely to
leadtoanychange inthatstatus, orwith regard tospecific provisions orobligations ofthe
Community Patent Convention.
TheCommunity Patent Convention isaninternational treaty signed bytheMember States of
theEuropean Communities. TheCPC isnotaninstrument under theTreaty ofRome butisrather
aclassical international treaty, opentoallMember States oftheEuropean Communities. Todate,
theconvention hasnotyetentered intoforce, since notallsignatories haveratified itordeposited their
instrumentofratification.TheEuropeanCommissionisabouttoadoptaGreenPaperontheCommunity
Patent andthepatent system inEurope. TheGreen Paper isaconsultation document intended tomeasure
whether itwould beappropriate toconvert theCPC intoalegalinstrument under theTreaty.
3. PleaseindicatewhethertheEuropeanCommunitieshascompetenceinthefieldofprotection
fornewvarieties ofplants, andthebasis ofsuchcompetence. Inthisregard, please clarify whether
theCouncil Regulations concerning plant variety rights hasbeenimplemented inauniform manner
throughout theEuropean Communities Member States. Please indicate whether anysteps are
being taken tocoordinate within theECMember States:
(a) ratification ofthe1991 ActoftheUPOV Convention; andIP/Q3/EEC/1
Page9
(b) amendment ofMember State plant variety protection systems torender them
compliant withthe1991 ActofUPOV.
There arecurrently twoparallel andindependent systems ofprotection ofplant varieties in
theEuropean Communities: ontheoneside,Regulation 2100/94 hascreated aCommunity-wide plant
variety rightand,ontheother side,national lawsprovide fornational plant variety rightprotection
inindividual Member States. Thelegal basis fortheEURegulation wasArticle 235oftheTreaty
ofRome. TheCouncil Regulation 2100/94 doesnotneedtobe"implemented" inauniform manner
bytheMember States since allEURegulations havedirect effect andgiveholders immediate and
identical rights throughout theCommunities. Todate,allMember States oftheEuropean Communities,
except Luxembourg andGreece, areparties totheUPOV Convention (the1961 Convention and/or
the1978 Act). ItisuptotheMember States todecide whether toratify the1991 ActoftheUPOV
Convention and,consequently, toamend theirlegislation torender them compliant withthisAct.