ARCHIVESHISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(82)769
Vol.1982/0231

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement(CEE,Euratom)n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernantl'ouvertureaupublicdesarchiveshistoriquesdelaCommunauté économique
européenneetdelaCommunautéeuropéennedel'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement(CE,Euratom)n°1700/2003du22septembre2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003,p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiésconformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
InaccordancewithCouncilRegulation(EEC,Euratom)No354/83of1February1983
concerningtheopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropeanEconomic
CommunityandtheEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunity(OJL43,15.2.1983,p.1),as
amendedbyRegulation(EC,Euratom)No1700/2003of22September2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003,p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary,classifieddocumentsinthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformitywithArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung(EWG,Euratom)Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar1983überdieFreigabederhistorischen ArchivederEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung(EG,Euratom)Nr.1700/2003vom22.September2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003,S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeitzugänglich.Soweit
erforderlich,wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenanntenVerordnungfreigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(82)769 final
Brussels/18November1982
Proposalfora
COUNCILDECISION
oncommonactionbyMemberStateswithintheframeworkof
thediplomaticconferencefortherevisionofthe
ParisConvention
(submittedtotheCouncilbytheCommission )
/$/r"'t"
J

C.CM 7/.^Proposal foraCouncil Decision • f*=-3
on -theRevision oftheParis Convention
fortheProtection ofIndustrial Property
1.This draft Decision relates tothecurrent negotiations forrevising
theParis Convention fortheProtection ofIndustrial Property ,The
negotiations aretaking place inaDiplomatic Conference ,ofwhich three
sessions have been ,orarebeing ,held :
Geneva ,February /March ,1980
Nairobi ,September /October ,1981
Geneva ,4th-29th October and23rd-27th November ,1982
2.Theextension ofthethird session (on23rd–27th November )wasagreed
upon inGeneva inorder toresolve theproblem ofArticle 5AoftheParis
Convention ,governing thesanctions which maybeapplied bycountries of
theParis Union incases where patents arenotexploited orareinsufficiently
exploited .Tomeet thedeveloping countries *wishes ,ithadbeen provisionally
agreed inNairobi ,byallindustrialised countries except theUSA,that one
such sanction should bethe "exclusive ,nonj-voluntary licence ".However ,
since thesecond session oftheDiplomatic Conference inNairobi ,EECand
USindustrial interests expressed their objections tothe "exclusivity "
ofthesanction }andtheUSgovernment (with thesupport oftheCommunity
andofother industrialised countries )undertook toconduct informal
negotiations toseewhether amodification ofthe "Nairobi text "could be
agreed ,
3.During thelast twoworking days inGeneva inOctober ,1982 ,theDiplomatic
Conference was informed that such anagreement hadbeen reached andate.-^j
prepared inwhich "exclusivity "hadbeen dropped and–another improvement -
theoccasions specified onwhich sanctions might beused .Themain advantage
ofthenewtext isthat itabandons theclause whereby developing countries
would beallowed toprovide fornon-voluntary licenses under apatent tobe
exclusive ,thus depriving theinventor notonly ofthemonopoly rights
conferred bythepatent ,butalso oftheright toexploit hisowninvention :
this clause was themain cause ofopposition bytheUnited F+vtes and
Italian delegations tothetext resulting from thesecond session .Ata
Community meeting inGeneva onFriday ,29th October ,theCommissi onrepresentative
recommended acceptance ofthetext ;andnine Member States' representatives
agreed .Therepresentatives ofItaly disagreed .Allother industrialised
countries were prepared toaccept thetext .Inorder toallow thecountries
oftheParis Union time tostudy thetext ,theDiplomatic Conference was
adjourned until 23rd November :itsmeeting that week will beexclusively
concerned with that text .

4.There arefour principal reasons forsupporting "thenew "text :
(a)itmeets theprincipal objection raised byEECindustries to
the "Nairobi text "}
(b)itrepresents aremarkable turn-round inthethinking of
thedeveloping countries ;
(c)itissupported bytheUnited States andcould therefore be
thebasis ofagenuine consensus intheConference ;and
(d)itmaynotcommend itself toalater session oftheConference
ifthere isachange intheleadership oftheGroup of77•
5.TheItalian Government isunwilling toagree tothenew text unless
other amendments aremade toArticles 5Aand 5quater .These amendments
maynotbeunreasonable inthemselves ;butthere isnot theslightest chance
that theItalian Government ,even ifsupported byother Member States ,will
squeeze more from thedeveloping countries than theUnited States ,with
considerable skill andenergy ,have succeeded indoing inGeneva ,Indeed ,
theamendments sought bytheItalian Government arealmost certain to
undermine theinformal agreement negotiated bytheUnited States .The
informal agreement requires aconsensus within theConference ;consensus
within theConference presupposes aconsensus among the industrialised
countries ;andoneoftheprerequisite ofconsensus among theindustrialised
countries iscommon action byMember States oftheCommunity .
6.There isalready aCouncil Decision ,dated 29th January ,1980 ,requiring
common action inthis field ;andthere aretwodirectives inaccordance
with theCouncil Decision ,onedated 20th February ,1980 ,theother dated
16th October ,1981 ,applying theDecision tothenegotiations onArticle 5A.
Thepresent draft Decision ,though consistent with theearlier decisions ,
isspecially framed todeal with theposition which hasarisen inthethird
session oftheDiplomatic Conference .

Proposalfora
COUNCILDECISION
oncommonactionbyMemberStates
withintheframeworkofthediplomaticconference
fortherevisionoftheParisConvention
THECOUNCILOF-THEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIES,
HavingregardtotheTreatyestablishing theEuropeanEconomic
Community,andinparticularArticle116thereof,
HavingregardtotheproposalfromtheCommission,
HavingregardtotheCouncilDecisionof29January1980,

Whereas aDiplomatic Conference isrevising theParis Convention
fortheProtection ofIndustrial Property ;
Whereas the revision ofthe Paris Convention includes matters of
particular interest tothecommon market ;
Whereas itcould have damaging consequences forthecommon market
andfortheCommunity ifMember States adopted different views at
theDiplomatic Conference ;
Whereas theThird Session oftheDiplomatic Conference isbeing
extended from 23 to27 .November 1982 ,forthepurpose of
resolving problems encountered inconnection with Articles 5Aand
5quater oftheParis Convention ;
Whereas itisnecessary forthesuccessful resolution ofthese
problems forMember States tosupport atext forthetwoarticles
inquestion setout intheannex totheDecision ;
Whereas this Decision does notprejudice theCommunity 'sexisting
powers .
HAS DECIDED ASFOLLOWS :

SoleArticle
Theimplementation ofcommonactionbyMemberStates,inaccordance
withtheCouncilDecisionof29January1960,shall,asregards
Articles5Aand5quateroftheParisConventionfortheProtection
ofIndustrialProperty,beinaccordancewiththeDirectiveannexed
hereto•
DoneatBrussels,
FortheCouncil
ThePresident

AMEX
Directive
ThedelegationsofMemberStatestakingpartintheDiplomaticConference
ontherevisionoftheParisConventionsignifytheiragreement ]
(a)tosupporttherevisedtextsofArticle5A,paragraph8,andofArticle
5qiater,setoutbelow;
(b)toreaffirmtheirearlieragreementtoincludeaCommunityclausein
futurebilateralagreementsbetweenEECCountriesanddeveloping
countries;and
(c)towithdrawanyreservations on,orproposalsforamending,other
paragraphsofArticle5A.
ARTICLE5A
(8)Notwithstanding anythingcontainedinparagraphs(3)and(4)tdeveloping
countrieshavetherighttoapplythefollowingprovisions :
(a)/SameasindocumentPR/DC/37»AnnexII,asamendedinthemeetings
ofMainCommitteeIofOctober23.1981(seedocumentPR/SM/5,
pages88to94)/
(b)Anydevelopingcountryhastherighttoprovideinitsnationallaw
thatthepatentmaybeforfeitedormayberevokedwherethepatented
inventionisnotworked,orisnotsufficiently worked,inthecountry
beforetheexpirationoffiveyearsfromthegrantofthepatentin
thatcountry,providedthatthenationallawofthecountryprovides
forasystemofnon-voluntary licensesapplicabletothatpatentand
that,intheopinionofthenationalauthorities competentfor
forfeitureorrevocation,atthetimeofthedecisionconcerning
forfeitureorrevocation,thegrantofanon-voluntary licensewould
notbepossiblebecausethereis"-noapplicantforanon-voluntary
licensewhocouldensuresufficientworking,orthatthebeneficiary
ofanorif-voluntary license,ifonewasgrantedbeforethedecision
concerningforfeitureorrevocation,didnot,infact,ensure
sufficientworking,unlesstheownerofthepatentprovescircumstances
whichinthejudgementofthenationalauthorities competentfor
forfeitureorrevocationjustifythenon-workingorinsufficient
workingofthepatentedinvention.

-2-
ARTICLE5QUATER
(1)/SameaspresenttextofArticle5gnater7
(2)Anydevelopingcountryhastherightnottoapplytheprovisions
ofparagraph(1).

ThepresenttextofArticle5quater(PatentstImportationofproducts
manufactured byaprocesspatentedintheimportingcountry)readsas
follows:
"WhenaproductisimportedintoacountryoftheUnionwherethere
existsapatentprotectingaprocessofmanufacture ofthesaid
product,thepatenteeshallhavealltherights,withregardtothe
importedproduct,thatareaccordedtohimbythelegislationof
thecountryofimportation,onthebasisoftheprocesspatent,with
respecttoproductsmanufactured inthatcountry."
Letexteactueldel'article5quater(Brevets:introduction de
produitsfabriquésenapplicationd'unprocédébrevetédanslepays
d'importation )selitcommesuit:
"Lorsqu'unproduitestintroduitdansunpaysde1'Unionoùilexiste
unbrevetprotégeantunprocédédefabricationduditproduit,le
brevetéaura,àl'égardduproduitintroduit,touslesdroitsquela
législationdupaysd'importationluiaccorde,surlabasedubrevet
deprocédé,àl'égarddesproduitsfabriquésdanslepaysmême»