•'•,<ïA-hfc*V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 24.06.1997 
COM(97) 314 final 
Promoting innovation through patents 
Green Paper on the Community patent and the patent system in Europe 
(presented by .the Commission) 
*** •tii1*' * • 

Summary 
Patents play a central role among the different instruments available for protecting innovation. It 
is a fact that the patent system has become complicated in Europe, with national patents existing 
alongside European patents and Community patents (although the Community patent system has 
yet to actually come into operation). 
When it adopted a First Action Plan for Innovation in Europe, the Commission deemed it 
essential to gain as full a picture as possible of the patent system in Europe in order to assess 
whether it meets the needs of users, examine whether new Community measures are necessary 
and consider what such measures could involve and what form they could take. 
This Green Paper pursues those three objectives and provides the basis for wide-ranging 
consultation of interested parties, the other Community institutions and the competent authorities 
in the Member States on the question of the protection afforded to innovation by the patent 
system in Europe. 
The central part of the Green Paper is devoted to the Community patent and the adjustments that 
might need to be made to the 1975 Luxembourg Convention in order to offer users a system that 
is accessible and legally secure at a reasonable cost. 
But other technical questions are necessarily raised by any discussion of the future of the 
Community patent, such as the further harmonization of certain aspects of patent law that could 
be necessary at Community level, the impact of the information society and electronic commerce 
on software-related inventions, formalities, and the use of patent agents. 
Lastly, certain issues discussed within the European Patent Organization have a decisive 
influence on the general debate on patents in Europe and the promotion of innovation. Some of 
these issues are also tackled in the Green Paper. 
CONTENTS 
1. INTRODUCTION lb 
2. THE PATENT SYSTEM AND THE SINGLE MARKET 2 
2.1 History . 2 
2.2 The need for further Community action on the Community patent 3 
3. THE COMMUNITY PATENT 4 
3.1 The need for a unitary patent system 4 
3.2 Presumed weaknesses of the Luxembourg Convention 6 
3.3 The problem of the cost of translations and possible solutions 8 
3.4 The problem of the judicial arrangements and possible solutions 10 
3.5 Fees 12 
3.6 Links to be established between the Community patent and the European patent 14 
3.7 Other questions 14 
4. FURTHER HARMONIZATION AT COMMUNITY LEVEL 15 
4.1 The need for further harmonization at Community level 15 
4.2 The patentability of computer programs and software-related inventions 16 
4.3 Employees* inventions 17 
4.4 Formalities, use of patent agents and recognition of professional qualifications 18 
4.4.1 Formalities 18 
4.4.2 Use of patent agents 18 
4.4.3 Professional qualifications 19 
4.5 Additional measures to make the patent system more attractive 20 
5. THE EUROPEAN PATENT 21 
5.1 General structure ofthe European patent 21 
5.2 The problem ofthe cost ofthe European patent 22 
5.2.1 Fees 22 
5.2.2 The distribution of revenue from renewal fees 2? 
5.2.3 Translations 24 
<\ 
l. INTRODUCTION 
Innovation is vital for the viability and success of a modern economy. In this regard, Europe 
seems less well placed than its main competitors. It has an excellent scientific base but is 
less successful than other regions ofthe world at converting its skills into new products and 
market share, especially in high-technology sectors.1 Despite certain notable success stories, 
such as the French high-speed train (TGV) and the GSM mobile phone system. Europe is 
lagging behind in many of the new technical fields, especially information and 
communications technology. Concern has been voiced about the extent to which European 
industry is taking part in the development of the information society and electronic 
commerce; a special effort needs to be made to improve the situation.2 
It is vital to protect the fruits of innovation. In economic terms, it has been clearly 
established that companies with specialized know-how which sell branded products and 
patented products or processes have a competitive advantage when it comes to maintaining or 
expanding their market share. 
We are now witnessing the globalization of our economies. At the same time, the value of 
what is produced lies more in the intangible investment component. Despite this, in a number 
of key indicators of research effort (the percentage of GDP allocated to research, research 
costs in industry, research expenditure per capita and the total number of researchers as a 
proportion ofthe labour force) the European Union trails behind Japan and the United States. 
Improving the patent system in Europe is not, in itself, going to reverse this trend: this can be 
achieved only by a fundamental reorganization of European research, as is currently under 
consideration. However, the patent system must under no circumstances act as a further 
brake on the competitiveness of European companies. Ease of obtaining patents, legal 
certainty, appropriate geographic coverage: these are all essential criteria for the effectue 
protection of innovation in the European Union. 
It must be noted that today, almost forty years after the Treaty of Rome was signed. 
companies doing business within the Community still do not have access to a single system of 
patent protection. Although the advantages of such a system speak for themselves (enabling 
rights to be managed centrally and affording greater transparency for competitors), the 1975 
Luxembourg Convention, which was supposed to establish such a system, has never been 
applied. 
The Community must seek to remove the political and practical obstacles that remain, 
preventing the single market from realizing its full potential. It is currently faced with an 
array of challenges, such as the need to create more jobs by increasing the international 
competitiveness of European companies, the globalization of the economy (in the face of 
which the single market is an essential condition of success) and the commitment of the 
Union to strengthening ties with the countries of central and eastern Europe. 
1 Green Paper on innovation (COM(95) 688 final. 20.12.1995). 
2 Commission communication entitled "A European initiative in electronic commerce' 
(COM(97) 157 final. 16.4.1997). 
1b 
2. THE PATENT SYSTEM AND THE SINGLE MARKET 
2.1 History 
Patent protection is ensured in the European Union by two systems, neither of which is based 
on a Community legislative instrument: the national patent systems and the European patent 
system. 
The national patent was the first to appear. It must be stressed that, in the Member States of 
the European Community, the national patent was harmonized de facto as, one by one, all the 
Member States acceded to the Munich Convention on the European Patent.3 
The European patent system is based on two international agreements, the 
1973 Munich Convention on the European Patent, or European Patent Convention, and the 
1975 Luxembourg Convention on the Community Patent, or Community Patent Convention, 
which is an integral part ofthe Agreement relating to Community patents, signed in 1989.4 It 
was the Member States' intention in 1975 to ensure that the time-lag between the entry into 
force ofthe two Conventions was as short as possible. 
The European Patent Convention does not create a uniform protection right but it does 
provide the applicant with protection in as many of the Signatory States as he wishes. 
Although this system has the advantage of being extremely flexible, it also has certain 
drawbacks associated with its complexity and cost. What is more, there is no provision 
within this system for a court with powers to settle patent disputes at European level; there is 
the risk here that the competent courts in the Member States will hand down contradictory 
judgments. 
The Community patent (introduced by the Community Patent Convention) is intended to 
bring together the bundle of protection rights resulting from the grant of a European patent 
and merge them into a single, unitary and autonomous, protection right valid throughout the 
Community of Twelve and governed only by the provisions ofthe 1989 Agreement relating 
to Community patents. However, this Convention has yet to take effect owing to delays in 
ratification by the twelve signatory Member States. 
The aims of the European Patent Convention and the Agreement relating to Community 
patents differ but complement each other. The European Patent Convention is intended to 
rationalize the grant of patents by establishing a centralized procedure managed by the 
European Patent Office in Munich. It is thus open to accession by any European State, in 
some cases at the invitation of the Administrative Council of the European Patent 
Organization.5 The Agreement relating to Community patents is designed to contribute to the 
achievement of the aims of the single market, with special reference to fair competition and 
the free movement of goods. 
All the Member States of the European Community are members of the Munich Convention on the 
European Patent, as are also three non-member countries: Switzerland. Liechtenstein and the 
Principality of Monaco. 
Agreement relating to Community patents, done at Luxembourg on 15 December 1989 (OJ No L 401, 
30.12.1989. p. 1). 
Article 166 ofthe Convention. 
2.2 The need for further Community action on the Community patent 
The first question that needs to be addressed is whether and to what extent interested parties 
would be. prepared to use the Community patent system as devised in the Luxembourg 
Convention if it were at last to come into effect following ratification by the 12 Signatory 
States. Would industry be attracted towards the new system or would, on the contrary, the 
existing system of the European patent and national patents prove sufficient to meet its 
needs? In the latter eventuality, use ofthe Community patent would be extremely limited, if 
not marginal. 
In 1975 the nine Member States which then made up the European Community, "desiring to 
give unitary and autonomous effect to European patents granted in respect of their 
territories",6 concluded the first version of the Luxembourg Convention. The definitive 
version ofthe Convention was adopted in 1989. The Agreement relating to Community 
patents signed in Luxembourg on 15 December 1989 concerns the Community of Twelve but 
does not deal with the 1995 enlargement in which Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the 
Community; the three new Member States are not directly concerned by the 1989 Agreement, 
although they are legally required to accede to it. In accordance with the provisions of the 
1989 Agreement, a special agreement may be concluded between the Contracting States and 
the acceding State to determine the details of application ofthe Agreement necessitated by the 
accession of that State.7 This would require such a special agreement to be negotiated, 
signed and then ratified by all the signatories to the 1989 Agreement: obviously an extremely 
cumbersome and complicated procedure, which could only become more so as further 
countries join the European Union. 
The patent system was set up in Europe by means of international agreements. This is 
because, at the time, the Community's competence in this field was not clearly established. 
Times have changed, however, and the Court of Justice of the European Communities has 
repeatedly recognized that the Community is competent to take action in the field of patents if 
this contributes to the attainment of one ofthe objectives ofthe Treaty (in this case, either the 
free movement of goods or a system ensuring that competition is not distorted).8 It should, 
however, be stressed that, in accordance with Article 235 ofthe EC Treaty, the creation of a 
new Community system of protection by means of a regulation would require unanimity, in 
turn necessitating a consensus between Member States on all the technical issues involved. 
Adoption of a Community regulation would offer the following advantages: the date of entry 
into force of the provisions would be known for certain, since it would be fixed irrevocably 
by the text itself (whereas the entry into force of a convention is uncertain, depending as it 
does on the speed with which the signatory countries ratify it), and matters would be greatly 
Preamble to the Convention for the European patent for the common market (Community Patent 
Convention) (OJ No L 17, 26.1.1976, p. 1). 
Article 7(4) ofthe Agreement. 
Paragraph 27 of the Court's judgment of ,13 July 1995 in CaseC-350/92 Spain v Council 
[19951 ECR 1-1985 and paragraph 59 of its Opinion 1/94 of 15 November 1994 [1994] ECR 1-5267 
(request submitted by the Commission for an opinion on whether or not the Community had 
exclusive competence to conclude the GATT Agreements). 
simplified when it came to future enlargements ofthe Community since the regulation would 
automatically form part ofthe acquis communautaire and would not have to be amended or 
renegotiated. Whether or not the Luxembourg Convention should be turned into a legal 
instrument covered by the Treaty and adopted under Article 235 is therefore a fundamental 
question to be addressed. 
As soon as strategic discussions began at Community level on innovation and how to protect 
it and on its effects on employment, the Commission deemed it necessary to take stock of the 
situation concerning the Community patent and the patent system in Europe.9 Hence this 
Green Paper, which first tackles the shortcomings resulting from the absence of the 
Community dimension in the European patent system and the obstacles preventing the 
Community system from coming into operation, before going on to look into the related 
technical, legal and political questions, such as further harmonization of patent law at 
Community level. 
The Green Paper has three main objectives: 
to gain as full a picture as possible of the situation as regards the protection of 
innovation by the patent system in the European Community; 
to examine whether new Community measures are necessary and/or whether existing 
arrangements need to be adjusted; and 
to consider what these new measures could involve and what form they could take. 
The Commission invites all interested parties to take part in a wide-ranging consultation on 
the topic and to respond to the questions set out in this Green Paper. 
3. THE COMMUNITY PATENT 
3.1 The need for a unitary patent system 
The Munich Convention ushered in major improvements in the patent system, such as a 
centralized procedure for the grant of patents based on uniform patent law and conducted in a 
single language, a reduction in the costs of protection where it is sought in more than one 
Member State, a high quality protection right and de facto harmonization-of the provisions of 
national patent law governing patentability, validity and the extent of protection. 
But, because it is not supplemented by the unitary Community patent, the system also has its 
limitations: 
- once a European patent has been granted, its entry into the national phase gives rise to. 
considerable costs and complicates the management of rights, since translations of the 
specification have to be filed with the national patent office of each designated country and 
renewal fees have to be paid for each of those countries; 
- the management of proceedings for infringement or revocation is complex, since actions 
have to be brought before the national courts of each country for which the European 
patent has been granted; 
First Action Plan for Innovation in Europe, presented by the Commission on 20 November 1996 
(COM(96) 589 final). 
- in the absence of a common court, the emergence of different interpretations of European 
patent law by national courts is liable to undermine the value ofthe European patent; 
- the sum total of the national fees payable for renewal of a European patent constitutes a 
heavy burden for patentees, especially since only part of the proceeds (currently 50%) is 
used to defray the costs incurred by the European Patent Office in managing the procedure 
for granting patents; 
- the additional costs of protection for each designated country are prompting businesses to 
be selective in their choice of countries, with effects that run counter to the aims of the 
single market. The fact that requests for protection are concentrated on the larger 
Member States disadvantages the smaller ones in terms of both technology transfer and 
their attractiveness to investors. And the limitation of protection to only part ofthe single 
market reduces its commercial value. 
If the Community patent system was brought into operation, it would have the essential 
feature of granting patents with a unitary character that would have equal effect throughout 
the Community and could be granted, transferred, revoked or allowed to lapse only in respect 
ofthe whole ofthe Community.10 The more Member States, that joined the Community, the 
wider the geographic coverage ofthe protection afforded by the Community patent. 
Although the Agreement relating to Community patents could have been expected to be 
ratified reasonably soon after it was signed in Luxembourg in 1989, this is still not the case 
more than seven years later,11 and it is debatable whether, in its present form, the Convention 
still attains the objectives assigned to it at the time. 
Some commentators - in academic circles more than in industry - have taken up a stance 
which they claim to be based on logic: they argue that the approach taken towards trade 
marks and proposed for designs, which involves setting in place a unitary protection right by 
means of a Community regulation, must necessarily be followed in the case of patents. This 
argument is not strong enough on its own to justify such an approach. It is, however, easy to 
imagine the advantages of a unitary patent system: 
- the management of rights would be greatly facilitated, since there would no longer be any 
national phase, which should also have the effect of reducing costs (no fees for entry into 
the national phase, savings in the use of professional representatives, etc.); 
10 Article 2(2) ofthe Community Patent Convention. 
11 Only seven Member States have so far completed ratification procedures: Denmark, Germany, 
Greece, France. Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (source: Council 
memorandum of 22 November 1996). 
- the system would avoid the need for infringement actions to be brought in each 
Member State since the plaintiff could bring all the actions before the courts of the 
Member State in which the defendant is domiciled;12 
- it would offer greater legal certainty through the creation of a central court competent to 
hand down decisions on interpretation and validity of Community patents. 
In response to this Green Paper, potential users are invited to give their views on the 
advantages and disadvantages of unitary patent protection, having due regard to the essential 
features of such a system: wide geographic coverage, necessary costs, application of the 
Community principle ofthe exhaustion of rights, etc. 
Two questions will then have to be addressed: 
- the size of the need expressed by users for a unitary patent system will first have to be 
assessed; 
- it will then have to be seen whether the objectives to be set for such a unitary system can 
be attained by means of the Luxembourg Convention, either in its present form or after 
amendment. 
Questions 
Generally speaking, what would in your view be the advantages and disadvantages of 
patent protection covering the entire Community, in terms of: 
costs? 
geographic coverage? 
the problem of distortions of competition? 
the free movement of goods? 
legal certainty? 
the monitoring of infringements? 
translation requirements? 
What are. in your opinion, the essential conditions to be met in terms of costs and 
legal structure if such a system is to function effectively? 
If ratification procedures currently in progress were finally to result in the Community 
patent coming into effect, would you be prepared to use it as provided for in the 
Luxembourg Convention? 
Any adjustment of the Luxembourg Convention would require the unanimous 
agreement ofthe Contracting States, involving either amendment ofthe Convention or 
the adoption of a regulation based on Article 235 ofthe EC Treaty. Do you think that 
such adjustment would be appropriate, or are you satisfied that the European patent 
together with the national patent systems suitably meet the needs of industry? 
3.2 Apparent weaknesses ofthe Luxembourg Convention 
The elimination, as far as the single market is concerned, of all the disadvantages and 
imperfections ofthe European patent system as outlined in point 3.1 is the very purpose of 
the Community patent. But, according to information in the Commission's possession, two 
12 Article 14(1) ofthe Protocol on the settlement of litigation concerning the infringement and validity 
of Community patents. 
14 fundamental aspects ofthe Community patent, as devised in the 1989 Agreement, are seen as 
detracting from its usefulness and practical attractiveness. 
For one thing, there are the extremely high translation costs due to the need to have the entire 
patent specification translated into the languages of all the Member States.13 A Community 
patent granted in the Community of Fifteen would require ten translations. As the average 
cost of a page of translation is DM 12814 and patent specifications run on average to 
20 pages, total expenditure on translation would be in the region of DM 25 000, which is 
clearly a huge cost for firms to bear, particularly SMEs. That cost is, however, to be 
compared with the major advantage conferred by the unitary nature ofthe Community patent, 
which offers uniform protection throughout a market of over 340 million people.15 
The second problem posed by the Luxembourg Convention appears to be that ofthe judicial 
arrangements set in place. The Convention provides for two procedures that can result in 
revocation of a Community patent. 
Firstly, an application for revocation may be filed direct with the European Patent Office. If 
the Revocation Division finds that the grounds for revocation laid down in the Convention are 
met, it revokes the patent with effect throughout the Community.16 
There is, however, a second means of obtaining revocation of a patent: it is to bring a 
counterclaim for revocation before a national court in which an infringement action has 
already been initiated. In such cases, if the court finds that any ofthe grounds for revocation 
laid down in the Convention prejudices the maintenance of the Community patent, it orders 
the revocation ofthe patent.17 A judgment by a national court of first instance which has 
become final and orders the revocation of a Community^ patent has the same effects in all 
Contracting States. Notwithstanding the possibility of bringing the matter before the 
Common Appeal Court in such cases,18 the powers which are conferred by the Convention 
on a single national court to order the revocation of a Community patent throughout the 
Community is considered by some to be a potential source of legal uncertainty. Some 
potential users ofthe Community patent system take the view that there is too great a risk of 
a patent covering a territory as vast and economically important as the Community being 
revoked by a judgment handed down by a single national court. 
This is compounded by a further difficulty: once the validity of a Community patent has been 
challenged by a counterclaim before a national court following an infringement action, any 
13 Article 30(1) and (2) ofthe Community Patent Convention. 
Figures are taken from documents produced by the European Patent Office in Munich, which uses the 
German mark as its reference currency. 
15 In the Community of Twelve. 
16 Articles 55 to 58 ofthe Community Patent Convention. 
17 Articles 15(2) and 19(1) ofthe Protocol on the settlement of litigation. 
18 Articles 21 and 22 ofthe Protocol on the settlement of litigation. 
other national court in which another infringement action has been brought must normally 
stay the proceedings.19 In view ofthe length of proceedings, which are often pursued up to a 
third judicial tier, the criticism is levelled against this rule that it is liable to result in 
implementation of the legal protection conferred by the Community patent being held in 
check. 
Questions 
Do you share the view that the main weaknesses of the Community patent in its 
present form (Luxembourg Convention) are (i) its high cost due to the obligation to 
have the patent specification translated into all Community languages and (ii) the legal 
uncertainty associated with the judicial arrangements? Can you see any other 
disadvantages? 
3.3 The problem ofthe cost of translations and possible solutions 
If the view is taken that the cost of translating the Community patent specification into all 
Community languages constitutes a major stumbling-block to the success of the Community 
patent, then solutions must be contemplated. But we must acknowledge from the outset that 
it is a thorny problem. 
One solution that can be contemplated is that envisaged by the original version of the 
Luxembourg Convention, which dates back to 1975. The general idea was to limit the 
translation requirement to the patent claims (Article 33). But this limited translation 
requirement could be extended by means of the reservation provided for in Article 88, 
whereby any Member State could declare that, if the patent specification was not published 
in one of the official languages of that State, the proprietor of the patent could not avail 
himself in that State of the rights conferred by the patent. The system established by the 
1975 Luxembourg Convention thus involved compulsory translation ofthe patent claims 
only, either at the time the patent was granted or shortly afterwards. Any Contracting State 
also had the right to demand a translation of the patent specification, the proprietor of the 
patent being free to decide when to file the translation, according to his protection needs. 
This solution would enable the patentee to decide how urgently he needs protection in a 
particular Member State and would allow him flexibility in choosing the point when he files a 
translation of the patent specification. The provision draws a distinction between cases 
where the patentee files the translation of the patent specification within three months of the 
date of publication ofthe mention ofthe grant ofthe patent, more than three months but less 
than three years later, or after three years have elapsed. In the first case, the patentee can 
avail himself of the rights conferred by the patent as soon as the translation is filed. In the 
second case, he can do so from the same point in time but, in respect of use of the invention 
without his consent before the translation is filed, he can avail himself of the rights conferred 
by the patent only to the extent of claiming reasonable compensation. In the third case, any 
person who has used or made effective and serious preparations for using the invention 
before the translation is filed may continue to use it on reasonable terms. 
A second solution was discussed at the 1989 Conference on revising the Convention and 
appeared to meet with fairly broad agreement. It involved leaving the requirement for 
translation ofthe full specification intact, but failure to file the translation in one or more 
19 Article 34 ofthe Protocol on the settlement of litigation. 
languages was not to result in revocation of the Community patent: its sole consequence 
would be that the patent would not take effect in the Member State(s) concerned. This would 
constitute an exception to the unitary character of the Community patent and would make it 
similar in that respect to the European patent. 
A third solution that can be considered with a view to reducing translation costs is the 
"package solution" developed by the European Patent Office for the European patent.20 The 
three main features of this solution are: 
- publication, at the same time as publication of the application or as soon as possible 
thereafter, of an enhanced abstract in the language of the proceedings and, subsequently, 
of translations into the languages of all Member States; 
- translation ofthe patent claims only at the time the patent is granted; 
- translation ofthe full patent specification before any action is brought by the patentee with 
a view to enforcing the rights created by the patent. 
The aim of the package solution is to improve the supply of information on patents and to 
eliminate the serious disadvantages inherent in the existing system while alleviating the 
financial burden on applicants. 
On the basis of the projections established by the EPO it can be estimated that, if it were 
transposed to the Community patent, the package solution would involve the preparation of 
the enhanced abstract, at a cost of approximately DM 100, and its translation into ten 
languages at DM 120 per language, i.e. a total translation cost for the new abstract of some 
DM 1 300. Since a patent contains on average 3.5 pages of claims, and assuming that the 
translation of claims would cost DM 500 per language, the average translation costs for the 
claims would work out at DM 5 000. 
Total translation costs would therefore be in the region of DM 6 300 per patent application, 
which would represent a saving of some DM 18 700 per application in comparison with a 
situation in which the complete patent specification had to be translated into all Community 
languages. 
Other solutions to the translation problem can be contemplated: 
• doing away with the requirement for translations altogether or requiring translation ofthe 
claims only; 
• establishing a system of translation "on demand", whereby a translation would have to be 
provided only if a third party were to demand one. To finance such a system, it would be 
necessary either to set up a reserve fund to cover the cost of any translations that were 
demanded or to introduce a levy to cover the costs of insuring against such an eventualitv; 
• the patent specification could comprise a summary description, which would contain the 
information essential to an understanding ofthe invention and interpretation ofthe claims 
20 Document No CA/46/96 of 19 November 1996 presented to the Administrative Council of the 
European Patent Organization. 
and would be translated, together with an annex containing a more comprehensive 
description that would not normally have to be translated. A variation on this idea was 
recently made public: the shortened version of the description. This would involve the 
description being condensed, at the initiative of the applicant but with the cooperation of 
the examiner, on completion ofthe substantive examination ofthe application. 
Whatever the scenario chosen, it appears to have been accepted that, in the interests of 
optimum efficiency, the filing of translations should not be devolved to the national patent 
offices but should be centralized at the European Patent Office. This is the approach taken 
in the Luxembourg Convention. 
Questions 
With a view to reducing translation costs, are you in favour of a system based on 
Articles 33 and 88 ofthe 1975 Luxembourg Convention or the "package solution" 
developed by the European Patent Office? 
If neither of the above solutions were feasible, would you be in favour of an 
arrangement that would constitute an exception to the unitary character of the 
Community patent, whereby failure to file translations would result in the patent not 
taking effect in the Member State(s) concerned? 
Do you regard the other alternative solutions that have been proposed for reducing 
translation costs as appropriate and promising (translation on demand, shortened 
description, etc.)? 
Do you share the view that centralization of the filing of translations of Community 
patent specifications at the European Patent Office, as provided for in the 
Luxembourg Convention, is an important aspect ofthe translation arrangements? 
3.4 The problem of the judicial arrangements and possible solutions 
The problem posed by the judicial arrangements set in place by the Luxembourg Convention 
was described in point 3.2 above. To remedy the presumed disadvantages of these 
arrangements, it should be seen whether adjustments can be made to the machinery21 in the 
context of a Community initiative aimed at integrating the Community'' patent more 
effectively into the legal system covered by the Treaty. 
One solution would be to give Member States' national courts jurisdiction for infringement 
actions, actions for a declaration of non-infringement and all actions in respect of the use 
made ofthe invention prior to publication ofthe mention ofthe grant ofthe patent. On the 
other hand, actions for revocation of Community patents could fall within the exclusive 
jurisdiction of a new revocation division to be set up within the European Patent Office. In 
other words, contrary to the provisions of the existing Convention,22 the national courts 
would not have jurisdiction for counterclaims for revocation of Community patents. 
If a counterclaim for revocation were brought before a national court in response to an 
infringement action, the court would have to stay the infringement proceedings until the 
competent revocation division at the EPO had decided on the validity ofthe patent. In other 
words, questions to do with the validity and revocation of Community patents could no 
21 Chiefly to avoid the consequences of Article 20 ofthe Protocol on the settlement of litigation. 
22 Article 15( 1 )(d) of the Protocol on the settlement of litigation. 
10 
longer be decided by national courts, but only by bodies operating at Community' level. To 
prevent any proliferation of counterclaims for revocation by alleged infringers, it would no 
doubt be necessary to limit the obligation to stay the proceedings to cases where the court 
hearing the infringement action considers that there are serious grounds affecting the validity 
ofthe Community patent. 
Starting from two separate lines of action, jurisdiction for validity and revocation questions 
would be exclusively conferred on a body operating within the EPO and, thereafter, the Court 
of First Instance of the European Communities. Two avenues would thus be open for 
securing the revocation of a Community patent: 
- filing an application for .revocation direct with the European Patent Office;23 or 
- bringing a counterclaim for revocation before a national court, which would have to stay 
the proceedings until the revocation division had taken its decision. Having due regard for 
that decision, the national court could then settle the dispute over infringement. 
As regards the conditions in which an application for revocation may be filed, the grounds for 
revocation, examination of the application, revocation or maintenance of the patent, and 
publication of a new specification following revocation proceedings, the present wording of 
Articles 55 to 59 ofthe Luxembourg Convention could probably be maintained. 
To allow appeals against decisions on the validity' of Community patents, an appeal to the 
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (CFI) would lie from decisions taken 
by the revocation divisions. Appeals could be brought on grounds of lack of competence, 
infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement ofthe Treaty- or ofthe legal 
instrument establishing the Community patent or of any rule of law relating to their 
application, or misuse of powers. The CFI would be competent both to revoke and to reverse 
the decision challenged. Certain questions to do with the organization of the CFI's work 
could arise in this context, and the possibility of setting up within the CFI a specialized 
chamber for dealing with Community patent issues could be considered.24 
A final appeal would lie from decisions on Community' patents by the Court of First Instance 
to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. This right of appeal would be 
restricted to points of law.25 
To ensure that these arrangements are fully effective, it would have to be clearly stipulated 
that decisions which have become final and which order the revocation or amendment of a 
Community' patent have the same effects in all Member States. 
23 Article 55 ofthe Community Patent Convention. 
24 If this suggestion were accepted, the detailed arrangements for setting up the new revocation division 
at the EPO and the possibility of appealing against its decisions before the Community Courts would 
be the subject of detailed study; this would hinge chiefly on the nature ofthe legal instalment chosen 
for setting these procedures in place. 
25 Article 168a(l) ofthe EC Treaty. 
11 
Another possible solution would be based more closely on the architecture of the 1975 
Convention. Under the Convention, a national court in which an action for infringement had 
been brought would retain jurisdiction to decide on a counterclaim for revocation; however, 
its decision on that counterclaim would affect the Community patent only in the 
Member State in which the court was located. An exception to this limitation ofthe effect of 
the decision could be contemplated in cases where an action for infringement brought before 
a court in the Member State of the alleged infringer's domicile related to infringements 
committed in another Member State. In such cases, the revocation order would affect the 
Community patent in that other Member State too. Such a solution would shield the 
proprietor ofthe patent from the risk of generalized and immediate revocation of his right. 
A general point needs to be made here. It is not possible to create new courts under legal 
arrangements which are covered by the Treaty, unlike the arrangements established by the 
Luxembourg Convention, which involve setting up a common appeal court for Community 
patents. Under legal arrangements covered by the Treaty, cases can be heard only by the 
Court of First Instance or the Court of Justice of the European Communities; the solution 
outlined here therefore does not envisage the creation of a common appeal court for patents. 
Question 
As far as judicial arrangements are concerned, are you in favour of a system: 
which would give exclusive jurisdiction for revocation proceedings to bodies 
operating within the European Patent Office (revocation division) and, on 
appeal, to the Court of First Instance ofthe European Communities, or 
which would leave jurisdiction for revocation proceedings with national 
courts, while restricting the effects, of their decisions to the territory of the 
Member State in which they are located? 
3.5 Fees 
It should first be stressed that the European Patent Office should be in charge of technical 
operation of the Community patent, whether the latter comes into existence in the manner 
provided for by the Luxembourg Convention or in a legal form that is covered by the Treaty. 
The procedural fees (filing fee, search fee, examination fees, etc.) levied in the case of the 
European patent will therefore likewise apply to the Community patent. At its 
December 1996 meeting, the Administrative Council ofthe European Patent Organization 
took two major decisions designed to reduce procedural fees significantly. One of those 
decisions reduces the amount of the filing, search and designation fees,26 while the other 
postpones the date on which designation fees fall due to six months after publication of the 
search report. 
These new procedural fees, which are to come into effect from 1 July 1997, would also apply 
to the Community patent. There should be no designation fee for the Community patent 
since it is unitary and affords uniform protection throughout the Community: no particular 
Member State is, strictly speaking, "designated". If a designation fee or its equivalent were 
26 The filing fee is to be reduced from DM 600 to DM 250, the European search fee from DM 1 900 to 
DM 1 700, the international search fee from DM 2 400 to DM 2 200 and the designation fee from 
DM 350 to DM 150. The reductions will represent a total saving of DM 124 million in a full vear. 
12 
nevertlieless applied, it would at the very least have to be capped so that it did not exceed the 
amount paid for a limited number of designations in the case ofthe European patent. 
If the Community patent were to migrate towards a legal system covered by the Treaty, the 
financial provisions relating to renewal fees would have to be revised. The 1989 version of 
the Luxembourg Convention provides that revenue derived from fees, less the payments to 
the European Patent Organization by way of renewal fees, are to be distributed among the 
States parties to the Convention in accordance with a scale laid down therein.27 Under a 
legal system covered by the Treaty, such a system could not work and would have to be 
abolished. 
The body in charge of operation of the Community patent system should be financially in 
balance, which means that it should retain all the different fees paid by users. The revenue 
side of its budget should therefore comprise, without prejudice to other items, the revenue 
from fees payable under the fees regulation and, if necessary, a contribution charged to the 
general budget of the European Communities. The regulation on fees for the Community 
patent should, for its part, be adopted by way of the committee procedure, on a proposal 
from the Commission. 
Fees should be set such that the corresponding revenue normally enables the budget to be 
balanced. This means that, as a general rule, the body operating the system would not be 
able to make over any share ofthe revenue to other national or international bodies. 
Lastly, given the unitary character of the Community patent and therefore the absence of any-
choice as regards the geographic extent of the protection it confers, thought should be given 
to the question of whether additional measures should be taken on the fees front in order to 
make the system attractive to users. The possibility should be discussed of setting the 
renewal fees for the Community patent payable to the European Patent Office such that they 
amount to less than the total amount of the renewal fees for a European patent covering the 
whole ofthe Community. 
It has also been suggested that the proprietor of a Community patent should have the option 
of not paying a share ofthe annual renewal fee corresponding to certain Member States; this 
would make the system more flexible and would enable the Community patent to be renewed 
in respect of some Member States only. This system, which is sometimes referred to as the 
"à la carte Community patent", would introduce a form of partial waiver of rights, restricted 
to certain Member States, through non-payment of a proportion ofthe annual renewal fees.28 
Questions 
Should the financial arrangements laid down in the Luxembourg Convention and the 
European Patent Convention concerning the renewal fees for Community patents be 
amended such that the revenue from these fees accrues in full to the European Patent 
Office in order to defray the costs of granting and administering Community patents'? 
27 Article 20 of the Community Patent Convention. 
28 This would require the amendment of Articles 48 and 49 ofthe Community Patent Convention. 
13 
Given the alternative means of protection available to users (European patent, national 
patents, etc.), do you consider that further measures are necessary to make the 
Community patent system attractive, for example a reduction in renewal fees? 
Would it be feasible to give proprietors of Community patents the option of partial 
waiver ofthe protection they confer, in respect of a limited number of Member States, 
through non-payment ofthe annual renewal fees? 
3.6 Links to be established between the Community patent and the 
European patent 
The Community patent should be a unitary system conferring rights that can be relied on 
throughout the Community. The larger the Community becomes, the wider the geographic 
coverage of the protection. This will no doubt be an advantage, but it could also prove 
problematic for some businesses, which might find it difficult to assess, at an early stage in 
the procedure, the need for such extensive protection. In addition to the possible need for 
protection in certain countries that are not Member States of the European Community7, the 
European patent will retain its usefulness in that it enables the firm concerned to designate 
certain countries and not necessarily all the Member States. 
There is therefore undoubtedly a need to introduce some flexibility into the patent system in 
Europe, and this could possibly be achieved by establishing links between the Community 
patent and the European patent. The advantage of allowing such conversion would be that it 
would make it possible initially to cover the whole of the single market and then to limit the 
geographic coverage only during or towards the end of the procedure for the grant of the 
patent. 
An applicant for a Community patent would thus be able to ask for his application to be 
converted into a European patent application as long as the application existed in legal tenus 
(which would not be the case if the application had been withdrawn or was deemed to have 
been withdrawn or if it had been refused). A European patent application deriving from the 
conversion of a Community patent application would have the same date of filing or priority 
as the Community patent application it replaces. 
The opposite situation, in which a European patent application could be converted into a 
Community patent application, would be more difficult to envisage, except in cases where the 
European patent application designated all the Member States ofthe European Community. 
It should furthermore be borne in mind that the possibility of converting a Community patent 
(once it has been granted) is already provided for by the second sentence of Article 30(6) of 
the 1989 Luxembourg Convention. 
Question 
Do you think it necessary to establish links between the Community patent and the 
European patent, for example by making it possible to convert a Community patent 
application into a European patent application? Would you wish to see any other 
links established? If so, how could they operate? 
3.7 Other questions 
The Annexes to the Agreement relating to Community patents signed in Luxembourg in 1989 
contain several declarations and resolutions on certain substantive points of patent law. 
14 
In the context of a new initiative regarding the Community patent, thought could be given to 
the question of whether action should be taken on some of these resolutions. 
The resolution on common rules on the granting of compulsory licences in respect of 
Community patents has become largely irrelevant since a comprehensive set of rules 
governing compulsory licences has been incorporated in the GATT/WTO Agreement on 
trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs).29 If a new initiative covered by 
the Treaty were taken in the field ofthe Community patent, all the provisions ofthe TRIPs 
Agreement could be either reproduced in full or explicitly referred to in the legal instrument 
used. 
According to the resolution concerning prior use or possession, a procedure is to be initiated 
for revising the Convention in order to create a right, based on prior use or possession of an 
invention which is the subject-matter of a Community patent, which will have uniform effect 
throughout the territories ofthe Member States. The right of prior use or possession depends 
on good faith. It is debatable whether there is any need for further action in this area in order 
to ensure that the effects of prior use or possession are uniform throughout the Community. 
It should be borne in mind that all European countries agreed on rules governing prior use in 
the context of the first part of the diplomatic conference for the conclusion of the treaty on 
patent harmonization (The Hague, 1991). 
Question 
Do you think that questions of prior use or possession need to be hannonized at 
Community level in the context of a new initiative concerning the Community patent? 
4. FURTHER HARMONIZATION AT COMMUNITY LEVEL 
4.1 The need for further harmonization at Community level 
The European Community has been able to use its powers to legislate in the patents field, 
notably in order to take account of technological progress in sectors with high value added. 
Two Parliament and Council Regulations have thus been adopted creating a supplementary 
protection certificate for pharmaceutical and plant-health products with a view to plugging 
the gap in protection that was penalizing research into those products. In another field, the 
Commission has proposed an instrument specifying the conditions in which a patent may be 
obtained for a biotechnological invention.30 
These examples demonstrate that if the need is clearly established, the Community' is capable 
of proposing and adopting appropriate legislation. The question arises whether further 
harmonization, at Community level, of patent law in other areas of technology or on other 
aspects would be desirable. 
29 Article 31 (a) to (1) of the TRIPs Agreement. 
30 Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological 
inventions (COM(95) 661 final, 13.12.1995; OJ No C 296, 8.10.1996). 
15 
4.2 The patentability of computer programs and software-related inventions 
The development of the information society and electronic commerce offers the European 
economy a genuine opportunity but also confronts it with new challenges. The design and 
constant improvement of new computer programs and software is set to play a major role in 
the development of the information society and electronic commerce since the programs 
concerned have to afford swift, reliable and accurate access to the information and interactive 
services sought. The Commission has already taken certain steps with a view to setting in 
place legislation ensuring, throughout the Union, an adequate level of protection of 
innovation linked to the information society. In November 1996 it thus adopted a 
communication on follow-up to the Green Paper on copyright and related rights in the 
information society.31 Rules on copyright and related rights are essential if the information 
society and electronic commerce are to function properly in the European Union, since the 
content of most ofthe new services lends itself to protection by intellectual property rights. 
In the European Community today, computer programs can enjoy copyright protection as 
literary works32 but cannot be protected "as such" by patents. The patentability of 
software-related inventions does not call into question the existing protection of software by 
copyright law. Faced with the increasing importance of software, the European Patent Office 
and the national patent offices of some Member States have in recent years granted 
thousands of patents protecting logical models composed of basic ideas and principles that 
constitute "technical solutions to technical problems". These patents were not granted for the 
software per se but in respect of software-related inventions consisting of hardware and 
specific software. 
At international level, Article 27 of the TRIPs Agreement does not rule out the patentability 
of computer programs, and some non-member countries do allow them to be the 
subject-matter of patents. On 28 February 1996 the United States published new guidelines 
for examiners concerning software-related inventions: whereas a claim relating to a 
mathematical algorithm was accepted in the past only if a physical transformation was 
present, a more pragmatic approach is advocated today based on the necessary "utility" of 
the invention. This has the effect of broadening the scope of software-related inventions that 
are patentable. Software was, however, already extensively patented in the United States: a 
computer program carried on a tangible medium, e.g. a diskette, was patentable even before 
the new guidelines were published.33 
Japan is also examining whether the guidelines issued to examiners on this question need to 
be amended. On 8 August 1996 the Japanese Patent Office thus published new draft 
guidelines in accordance with which computer programs would not be patentable as such, but 
inventions would be patentable where they involved a high degree of "technological" 
creativeness using the laws of nature. 
31 COM(96) 568 final, 20.11.1996. 
32 Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs 
(OJ No L 122, 17.5.1991, p. 42). 
33 Decision ofthe US Patent and Trademark Office of 26 April 1996 in re Beauregard. 
16 
In the Community, interested parties have already been consulted on these matters via the 
questionnaire on industrial property rights in the information society drawn up by the 
Commission in July 1996. The answers received vary widely: some respondents wished to 
see the present balance maintained between copyright (for programs as such) and patent 
protection (for software-related inventions) and action limited to ensuring that the relevant 
provisions are applied uniformly in the different Member States; others felt, on the contrary, 
that the time had come to reshape the system and, in particular, to consider deleting 
Article 52(2) ofthe European Patent Convention so as to allow the patentability of computer 
programs as such. In the opinion of those advocating such an approach, the requirement that 
the invention be of a "technical" nature should be maintained but once such a feature was 
present, a program which is recorded on a medium and puts the invention into effect once it is 
loaded and started up would become patentable. 
Given the position taken by some interested parties, who advocate deleting Article 52(2) of 
the European Patent Convention, the possible practical consequences of such a step need to 
be examined, with special reference to the simultaneous application of copyright law and 
patent law to the same work or invention. 
Questions 
As far as the patentability of computer programs and software-related inventions is 
concerned, do you think that: 
existing differences between judicial precedents in the Member States are 
liable to create barriers to trade or distort competition'? 
differences between Europe and its main trading partners are liable to create 
difficulties for European firms? 
these differences call for further harmonization at Community level in this 
area? 
As far as the patentability of computer programs and software-related inventions is 
concerned, do you think that deletion of Article 52(2) of the Munich Convention 
should ultimately be proposed? 
If so, what is your view of the simultaneous application of cop} right law and 
patent law to the same creation or invention? 
If not, do you nevertheless think that the guidelines for EPO examiners should 
be amended in this respect? 
4.3 Employees' inventions 
There are at present great differences between Member States' rules governing inventions by 
employees. Employees' inventions are inventions made by research staff or technical staff 
(researchers, engineers, etc.) under an employment contract with a firm or laboratory. In 
some Member States the question is dealt with in general terms by patent law (e.g. in 
France34 and the United Kingdom35); in others a specific law has been enacted, as in 
Germany and Sweden. The general rule which is common to all such legislation is that if an 
invention is made in the course ofthe employee's normal duties under his employment 
34 Article L.611 -7 of the Intellectual Property Code. 
35 Sections 39 to 43 ofthe Patents Act ("Employees' inventions"). 
17 
contract (i.e. if the employee has an inventive role), the patent belongs to the employer. For 
the rest, the precision of the legislation varies greatly from one Member State to another. 
Some laws contain procedural provisions on the filing of patent applications by the inventor, 
stipulate whether the inventor can or must have his name mentioned on the patent, etc. Other 
laws distinguish between "permanent", "temporary" and "occasional" inventive roles, with 
different rules for determining ownership ofthe patent in each case. Other laws, such as the 
German act, contain a long series.of provisions relating to the remuneration of employees 
with an inventive role and lay down the precise method for calculating additional 
remuneration. 
Clearly, the application of these different rules by businesses has an impact on research work 
and management. The more the legislation is detailed and complex, the more human 
resources the firm has to devote to the management of such matters. It could be that 
differences between national laws on employees' inventions are having an effect on the 
freedom to provide services in the single market and/or on the conditions of competition. 
Question 
Are existing differences between Member States' laws on employees' inventions likely 
to have an impact on innovation and employment conditions and/or the freedom to 
provide services and/or the conditions of competition? Are they such as to justify 
harmonization at Community level? 
4.4 Formalities, use of patent agents and recognition of professional 
qualifications 
4.4.1 Formalities 
Formalities currently differ between Member States as regards the forms to be completed, 
time-limits to be observed, infonnation to be provided, the way in which information has to 
be presented and legalization of documents. Procedures also occasionally differ following the 
grant of a patent. This means that detailed knowledge of each national system is necessary in 
order to be able to give valid advice to applicants or patentees. Work currently in progress 
within the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) with a view to concluding a 
treaty harmonizing patent law with regard to such formalities shows the way forward. It is 
questionable whether, once such a treaty were adopted, there would be any need to engage in 
further harmonization of formalities at Community level, for example with regard to the 
infonnation required on the invention, the inventor and the applicant, the way in which the 
infonnation is to be presented and the degree of authentication required, and the number of 
forms to be completed, so that the application is treated in the same manner throughout the 
Community. 
4.4.2 Use of patent agents 
Most Member States' laws contain provisions which, in one way or another, require 
applicants for or proprietors of patents to have a domicile or address for service in their 
territory insofar as the protection requested there is granted. The applicant, or his 
representative, is not usually allowed to deal direct, from his home Member State, with the 
patent offices ofthe other Member States without having a domicile or address for service in 
those Member States. 
Some national rules also make it mandatory to use the services of a qualified representative 
who is domiciled in the national territory. These rules prevent a single representative, 
domiciled in one Member State, acting for his client vis-à-vis the patent offices of the other 
Member States. 
In connection with this question, the Court has stated in Sâger v Dennemeyer36 that, having 
regard to the particular characteristics of the provision of services in certain sectors of 
activity, specific requirements imposed on the service provider cannot be regarded as 
incompatible with the Treaty, particularly where they are intended to protect the recipients of 
the services in question against the harm which they could suffer as a result of legal advice 
given to them by persons who did not possess the necessary professional or personal 
qualifications. However, as a fundamental principle ofthe Treaty, the freedom to provide 
services may be limited only by rules which are justified by imperative reasons relating to the 
public interest and which apply to all persons or undertakings pursuing an activity in the 
State of destination, insofar as that interest is not already protected by the rules to which the 
service provider is subject in the Member State in which he is established. In the case ofthe 
monitoring and renewal of patents through the payment of fees, the service provider does not 
advise his clients but confines himself to alerting them when the renewal fees have to be paid. 
The Court held that rules reserving such services for persons holding a special professional 
qualification, such as lawyers or patent agents, were disproportionate in relation to the 
objective sought. 
It is worth considering whether the consequences of this judgment should be codified in some 
way at Community level, either through legislative hannonization or by means of an 
interpretative communication, and whether any such instrument should also cover other 
procedural aspects such as addresses for service and requirements regarding domicile. In any 
event, such codification would not affect the possibility of initiating infringement proceedings 
if certain national rules were to prove incompatible with the freedom to provide services 
(Article 59 ofthe EC Treaty) or the right of establishment (Article 52 ofthe EC Treaty). 
4.4. S Professional qualifications 
As far as professional qualifications are concerned, the scope of Directive 89/48/EEC 
includes qualifications in the field of patents. Under that Directive, professional 
qualifications acquired in one Member State must be recognized throughout the Community, 
but the Member States are entitled to require the person concerned either to undergo an 
adaptation period or to take an aptitude test. The fonn this aptitude test is to take and the 
topics covered have so far not been finally decided in several Member States. 
In accordance with the Directive (see in particular Article 1(g)), and indeed with the 
proportionality principle, the aptitude test should be limited to what is necessary. Since the 
substantive law practised by the professional has already been to a great extent hannonized 
and transposed by the Member States, the aptitude test should be limited to cases where the 
matters covered by the applicant's education and training "differ substantially from those 
covered by the diploma required in the host Member State".37 The European qualifying 
36 Judgment of 25 July 1991 in Case C-76/90 [19911 ECR 1-4221. 
37 Article 4(1 )(b) of the Directive 89/48/EEC. 
19 
examination (Article 134(2)(c) ofthe European Patent Convention) could also be deemed, as 
far as patents are concerned, an adequate qualification for making representations to the 
national offices. 
In its judgment in Gebhard** the Court of Justice held that the possibility for a national of a 
Member State of exercising his right of establishment, and the conditions for his exercise of 
that right, must be determined in the light ofthe activities which he intends to pursue on the 
territory ofthe host Member State. Where the taking-up or the pursuit of a specific activity 
is subject to certain conditions, such as the obligation to hold particular diplomas, those 
conditions must satisfy four fundamental requirements: they must be applied in a 
non-discriminatory manner; they must be justified by imperative requirements in the general 
interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment ofthe objective which they pursue; 
and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (principle of 
proportionality). 
Questions 
On the question ofthe harmonization at Community level ofthe procedural formalities 
connected with the grant and renewal of patents: 
Do you think that such harmonization is necessary and, if so, that it should 
cover the use of patent agents, addresses for service and the choice of 
domicile? Can you suggest any other topics that should be covered? 
Do you think that any such harmonization should take the form of legislation 
(a directive) or of a recommendation addressed to Member States?39 
4.5 Additional measures to make the patent system more attractive 
It is clear that one ofthe obstacles to optimum use ofthe patent system in Europe is the cost 
involved not only in obtaining protection, but also in enforcing it before the courts. 
Suggestions have been made for facilitating use of the patent system by businesses, and in 
particular SMEs. 
One line of action could be to hannonize national laws on utility models, a particular form of 
protection for technical innovation that can be obtained swiftly and cheaply and is well-suited 
to the needs of many SMEs.40 In the patents field, consideration could be given to the 
possibility of setting up a system of legal costs insurance that would be financed individually 
by each patent holder. If a business which had taken out an insurance policy of this type had 
to take court action in order to enforce the rights conferred on it by a patent, it would be 
entitled to submit a claim to the insurance company for reimbursement of its costs. Various 
alternative arrangements could be considered: either individual policies taken out by firms, or 
an insurance pool that could be joined, on a voluntary basis, by all businesses in a given 
sector, in order to spread the risks more evenly. In the case of SMEs in particular and given 
the difficulties they usually face in securing protection for their innovations, some fonn of 
public financing (or part-financing) of the system of legal costs insurance could be 
considered. 
38 Judgment of 30 November 1995 in Case C-55/94 [1995] ECR 1-4165. 
39 Directives must be transposed into national law by Member States, whereas recommendations are not 
legally binding. 
40 Green Paper on the protection of utility models in the single market (COM(95) 370 final. 19.7.1995). 
20 
Since the idea would be to enable private initiatives to develop (such as the insurance pool) 
or to allow action at national level (such as public financing), care would clearly have to be 
taken to ensure that such measures were compatible with Articles 85 and 92 of the 
EC Treaty. 
Question 
To make the patent system more attractive, particularly for SMEs, howr do you think 
that implementation of the protection afforded by patents could be facilitated? What 
are your views on the possibility of introducing legal costs insurance in the patents 
field? Do you consider that additional harmonization measures need to be taken at 
Community level in this area? 
5. THE EUROPEAN PATENT 
5.1 General structure ofthe European patent 
The European patent came into existence following the conclusion of the European Patent 
Convention, which was signed in Munich on 5 October 1973. The Convention establishes a 
single procedure for the grant of patents, which, once granted, are subject to the national 
rules of the Contracting States designated in the application. The number of member 
countries ofthe European Patent Organization is currently 18. It is worth noting that, under 
the Europe Agreements concluded between the European Community and its Member States, 
on the one hand, and the countries of central and eastern Europe, on the other, the central and 
eastern European countries have undertaken to be ready within five years to apply to join the 
Munich Convention. 
According to opinions voiced by users ofthe patent system in Europe, the European patent is 
giving ample satisfaction both in tenus ofthe calibre ofthe work carried out by the European 
Patent Office and in terms ofthe value ofthe protection right which it confers. Two major 
improvements are, however, eagerly awaited by users. One concerns the patentability of 
biotechnological inventions, an area in which the present uncertainties should be resolved 
through early adoption of the new proposal for a Directive presented by the Commission in 
late 1995. The other relates to reductions in the fees charged by the European Patent Office 
and changes to the rules governing translations of the European patent; the first issue has 
been settled and the second is currently under discussion within the Office. 
For the rest, the current structure of the patent system in Europe, in which the European 
Patent Office is an international organization set up by treaty and is therefore independent of 
the Community, does not appear to pose the slightest problem for users. It should be stressed 
that the European Commission is entitled to attend meetings ofthe Administrative Council of 
the European Patent Organization as an observer and that it decided, three years ago, to avail 
itself fully of the opportunities thus available to it for making its views known on issues of 
common interest to both organizations. 
Question 
Do you share the view that the current structure ofthe European Patent Office, a body 
which is independent of the Community institutions, does not entail disadvantages for 
users which should be overcome through a different legal stnicture which is more 
closely integrated into Community law? 
21 
5.2 The problem of the cost of the European patent 
5.2.1 Fees 
In 1996 the Administrative Council ofthe European Patent Organization, supported by the 
Commission, came to the conclusion that, in view of the Organization's revenue and the 
persistent level of its surpluses, a reduction in the cost of patents should be considered and a 
signal given to users ofthe system 
The thrust of the decision on the level of fees taken by the Administrative Council on 
6 December 1996 was explained in point 2.6 above. This was a highly significant decision, 
which demonstrated that the European Patent Organization had taken on board the criticisms 
voiced by users and was able, in the prevailing circumstances, to respond positively. The 
Administrative Council also decided on that date that applicants for European patents would 
no longer have to pay the designation fees when filing the application but could do so up to 
six months after publication ofthe search report. 
These decisions are in line with the wishes of users. On the assumption that the European 
Patent Office will at some time in the future again have some room for manoeuvre 
financially, it is worth considering which fees should be reduced as a matter of priority. 
Another question which is repeatedly raised in Europe is whether it would be desirable to 
introduce, as has been done in the United States, a special scale of fees - e.g. 50% lower - for 
SMEs. Such an approach, which could be applied not only to SMEs but also to individual 
inventors and universities, would involve reducing all the fees payable by a uniform rate. 
The problems to do with the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises have been 
resolved by the Commission Recommendation of 3 April 1996,41 which standardizes the 
definitions of SMEs, small enterprises and micro-enterprises used at Community- and national 
level. But it should be examined whether all SMEs would automatically quality- for reduced 
fees, and the effects that reduced fees for SMEs would have should also be studied in detail. 
At the present time, some 41% of European patent applications originating in Europe are 
filed by SMEs (i.e. businesses with fewer than 250 employees); consequently, in a balanced 
budget situation, a 50% reduction for SMEs would have to be offset by a general increase in 
fees of approximately 22%. It could also prove necessary to stipulate that any false 
representations in this connection would lead to the -loss of protection, along the lines of the 
system in place in the United States ("fraud on the Office"). 
Questions 
If, while maintaining standards of quality and efficiency, the European Patent 
Organization were in a position to continue its drive to control costs and further 
reduce the fees charged by the Office, which fees should be reduced as a matter of 
priority? 
Do you think that other aspects of the system of fees for the European patent should 
be changed? Can you see an advantage in, or a need for, introducing reduced fees for 
SMEs, along the lines of existing arrangements in the United States ("small entities 
fees:;)? 
41 OJ No L 107, 30.4.1996. 
22 
5.2.2 The distribution of revenue from renewal fees 
Under the Munich Convention, the amounts of the procedural fees collected by the 
Organization and the share of revenue from renewal fees for European patents paid to the 
Organization by Contracting States must be fixed such that the corresponding income 
enables the budget to be balanced. Since, once they have been granted, European patents are 
governed by national law, it is stipulated that the Organization is to receive revenue from the 
Contracting States by way of a share of the annual renewal fees they collect. Although the 
Convention stipulates that the proportion of renewal fees to be paid to the Organization may 
be fixed at up to 75%, the Administrative Council decided in 1984 to reduce it to 50%. 
According to estimates that have been made, the result of this share-out formula is that the 
total revenue of the national offices has on average remained unchanged in comparison with 
the situation prevailing before the European patent system was introduced, although their 
workload has on average fallen by half. 
Interested parties have repeatedly voiced their opposition to any further reduction in the share 
of revenue from renewal fees accruing to the Organization and called for the Organization's 
surplus income over its expenditure to be used in its entirety in order to reduce procedural 
fees. 
The way in which revenue from renewal fees is used varies greatly between the Contracting 
States. In some States, the share of renewal fees for European patents retained by the 
national authorities is not allocated to activities linked to the operation of the patent office or 
intended to promote innovation since it is paid straight into the general government budget; 
some commentators have even described such a situation as a "tax on innovation" insofar as 
the revenue from renewal fees is not earmarked for innovation-related activities. In these 
circumstances, thought should be given to the allocation and use of revenue from annual fees. 
One last point should be made on the question of fees: the total cost of a European patent is 
also due to the procedures for validating European patents in the different Contracting States 
and the fees charged in connection with those procedures. The mere cost of publishing a 
European patent in the different countries thus amounts to DM 4 762. 
Questions 
On the question of the distribution of revenue from the renewal fees for European 
patents: 
Do you consider it appropriate that revenue from renewal fees for European 
patents should be partly used to finance the national patent systems? 
If so, should an objective, non-automatic link be established between the 
needs voiced by the national systems and the allocation of financial resources 
in order to make that allocation more transparent? 
What, in your opinion, are the innovation-related tasks perfomied at national 
level that could legitimately be financed via the share-out of revenue from 
renewal fees for European patents? 
As far as the promotion of innovation is concerned, is it not the case that 
some aspects ofthe share-out system have adverse effects, particularly where 
the bulk of the resources is paid straight into the general government budget 
and is not earmarked for activities directly linked to innovation? 
23 
5.2.3 Translations 
One item that looms large in the total cost of patent protection is the extremely high cost of 
having European patents translated/validated. It is estimated that European industry alone 
spends some DM 430 million per year on this item, which means that an "average" European 
patent granted for the eight most commonly designated Member States costs more than 
DM 20 000 merely to be translated/validated. Aware of this problem, the Administrative 
Council of the European Patent Organization has looked into several solutions, and these 
were outlined in point 3.3 above. 
Question 
Do you regard the "package solution" developed by the European Patent Office with a 
view to reducing translation costs as appropriate and effective? If not, why not? Can 
you imagine other realistic solutions, bearing in mind that, if they were to be put into 
effect and to prove effective, they would have to be adopted unanimously or by an 
overwhelming majority of Member States? 
24 



ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 314 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 08 16 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-309-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-21652-6 
Office for Official Publications ofthe European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg