EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 30.6.2010 
SEC(2010) 797 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
 
Accompanying document to the 
  
Proposal for a 
 
  
COUNCIL REGULATION 
  
on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent 
  
{COM(2010) 350 final} 
{SEC(2010) 796} 
 
EN 2   EN SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
The Impact Assessment accompanies the proposal  for a Council Regulation on the translation 
arrangements for the EU patent. 
1. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
Inventions in the EU can be protected by nati onal patents granted by the European Patent 
Office (EPO) or national patent offices. There is no unitary patent pr oviding protection across 
the entire EU. This leads to a fragmented patent system. 
Fragmentation is caused by the high costs and co mplexity of validating European patents in 
individual Member States which can amount to  40% of the overall costs of patenting in 
Europe. For instance, a European patent validated  in 13 countries is more than 10 times more 
expensive than a patent in the US or Japa n. Patent proprietors therefore usually limit 
protection to a few EU Member States.  
The high validation costs stem from national require ments for filing transla tions in the official 
languages of the countries where protection is sought:  
– Costs must be paid to specialised patent tran slators. On average, 85 EUR is charged per 
translated page for a patent of typical length of 20 pages. 
– Fees are charged by patent agents for tr anslation-related services e.g. acting as 
intermediaries between the proprietor and th e national patent offices, management and 
verification of translations, and ensuring compliance with national laws. These fees vary 
from around 150 to 600 EUR per validation.  
– Official fees are charged by some national pa tent offices to publish translations, ranging 
from 25 to 400 EUR.  
Examples of typical validation costs for a Europe an patent of 20 pages granted in German are 
as follows: 
– no cost for Germany, France and UK as  no validation requirements apply;  
– more than 4 500 EUR for 6 EU Member States; 
– almost 12 000 EUR for 13 EU Member States. 
High validation costs and complex ity result in a European pate nt being validated on average 
in 5 EU Member States. The average number of  validations has decreas ed over the last 15 
years while the number of Contracting States of the European Patent Convention (EPC) has 
risen from 17 to 37. The valida tion rate is very high in the 3 largest EU Member States. In 
2003, of all patents grante d by the EPO, 95% were validated in Germany; 80% in France, and 
75% in the United Kingdom. By contrast, less than 40% of Eur opean patents are validated in 
other Member States. 
Low validations entail a fragmented system fo r patent protection in the EU with negative 
effects on the functioning of the Internal Mark et. Patent right "borders" are being erected 
around individual Member States, reducing the co mmercial value of patented inventions, 
 
EN 3   EN impeding cross-border activities and leaving bus iness opportunities unexploited. By contrast, 
the EU patent would provide pr otection covering the entire EU. 
Some reform to reduce translation costs has taken place. The London Ag reement entered into 
force on 1 May 2008 for 14 EPC Contr acting States who have agreed  to dispense entirely or 
partly with translation require ments. In 4 EU Member States (DE, FR, LU, UK), validation 
costs have been cut entirely. In 6 other Member States (DK, LV, LT, NL, SE, SI), translations 
of the claims  must be supplied. However, 17 EU Me mber States are not party to the London 
Agreement and require a translation of the entir e patent into their official languages. Although 
the London Agreement has reduced costs, the different validati on practices could reinforce 
selective practices by patent holders. This has undesirable e ffects on the functioning of the 
Internal Market: 
• The localisation of patent protection in a few Member States risks leading to a 
concentration of R&D investme nts and technology transfer. Low patenting activity in other 
Member States is likely to have a knock- on effect on R&D activ ity and innovation, 
particularly affecting SMEs. This reinforces  the structural differe nces within the EU, 
affecting overall competitiveness. 
• In relation to patent enforcement, if goods enter the EU through a Member State where a 
patent is not in force, the rights holder ca nnot rely on the EU Customs Code to withhold 
goods suspected of infringing the patent. These goods can then circulate within the Internal 
Market. 
2. SUBSIDIARITY  
The creation of European intellectual propert y rights to provide unifo rm protection throughout 
the EU and associated language arrangements are provided for by Article 118 TFEU. Only the 
EU is entitled to act to create a uniform EU patent and its translation regime. 
3. OBJECTIVES  
On 3 March 2010, the Commission adopted the Eu rope 2020 strategy setting out 3 mutually-
reinforcing priorities: smart, sustainable and inclusive growt h. The first of these requires 
strengthening knowledge and innova tion as drivers for future gr owth. A key element here is 
improving the framework conditions for businesse s to innovate, including the creation of a 
single EU patent and a specialised  patent court. By providing for uniform protection of patent 
rights in the Internal Market, the EU patent  will improve conditions for R&D investments, 
particularly in regions with be low average innovation activity. This should facilitate reaching 
the 3% target of GDP invested  in R&D affirmed by Europe 2020. 
Stakeholder consultations, particularly the broa d consultation on the future patent policy in 
Europe in 2006, have shown that the creation of  the EU patent should add value alongside 
national and European patent systems. Patent  protection should be more accessible for all 
European businesses, including SMEs. Transl ation arrangements must therefore be: 
(i) cost-effective (ensuring competitiveness w ith patent systems in other major world 
economies),  
 
EN 4   EN (ii) simplified (balancing the needs of  innovative businesses for technological 
information with costs),  
(iii) legally secure (avoidi ng uncertainty from translations having legal effect). 
4. POLICY OPTIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THEIR IMPACTS  
4.1. Introduction 
All options analysed are base d on the following principles: 
1) Central filing of translat ions and electronic publication. On grant of the patent, any 
translations required should be filed centrally at the EPO, who will be in charge of the 
electronic publication of the EU patent and any translation of the claims. This alone will bring 
considerable cost reductions and simplific ation compared to the current situation. 
2) Automatic machine translations. Automatic machine translation (AMT) programs for 
patent documents will complement manual translat ions supplied on grant. This will improve 
the dissemination of technological information for researchers and give the EU patent a 
multilingual character. AMT will enable access to pa tent applications for users when they are 
published by the EPO. Automatic machine tran slations would be free of charge for 
information purposes only having no legal effect.  
3) Full translation in case of dispute.  In the case of a dispute relating to an EU patent, the 
patent proprietor shall pr ovide, at his expense and at the request of an alleged infringer, a full 
translation into an official language of the Member State in  which the alleged infringement 
took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. It is es timated that less than 1% of 
all patents become subject to litigation. 
4) Reimbursement of costs.  An application for an EU patent may be filed in any language. 
Where this language is not an EPO official langu age, a translation must be provided within a 
time period for the application to be processed.  For applicants residing or conducting their 
main business in a Member State that does not have an official language in common with the 
EPO, the costs of translation shall be borne by the system. 
The following options are explored in the Impact Assessment report: Base-line scenario – no proposal on translation arra ngements for the EU patent. 
Option 1  – EU patents are processed, granted and published in English. 
Option 2  – EU patents are processe d, granted and published in one of the 3 EPO working 
languages; claims are translated in to the other two working languages. 
Option 3  – EU patents are processed, granted and published in one of the 3 working 
languages of the EPO; claims are translated into the 4 ot her most commonly spoken EU 
languages. 
Option 4  – EU patents are processed, granted and published in one of the 3 working 
languages of the EPO; claims are transl ated into all official EU languages. 
 
EN 5   EN The analysis of the policy options concentrates  on the main economic impacts of translation 
arrangements for the EU patent. This covers the users of the patent system (overall and 
SMEs), innovators in general, patent informa tion users and professional services related to 
translations.  
4.2. Base-line scenario 
If the Commission does not propose a regulati on for translation arrangements for the EU 
patent, it can never come into existence. This  would take the opposite a pproach to the Council 
Conclusions of 4 December 2009 and the Eur ope 2020 Strategy. This option would fail to 
address the high costs caused by translation and validation requirements in the current 
European patent system. It would also maintain  the fragmentation of the system, impeding the 
functioning of the Internal Market. 
Lower translation costs might result from mo re Member States acceding to the London 
Agreement. Even if all Member States acceded  to the London Agreement, costly language 
arrangements for the European patent would pers ist due to translations of patent claims still 
being required by national laws. 
4.3. Option 1 
This option would use English as the language of  proceedings for the EU patent and require 
no further translations. Impact on a significant proportion of users of the patent system in 
Europe would be positive. Those filing European  patent applications in English would no 
longer have to translate claims into French a nd German at the time of grant. However, Option 
1 would have a negative impact on many users cu rrently filing European patent applications 
in French and German. Around 48% of all applications originating from Europe are filed in 
French or German at the EPO. 
Option 1 would change the existing EPO 3-langua ge regime for EU pate nt applications. All 
written and oral communication for grant and opposition proceedings at the EPO would be in 
English. Companies currently applying for European  patents in French or German would have 
to experience significant changes to make EU pa tent applications. By removing the flexibility 
of the current system enjoyed by many EU bus inesses, Option 1 could impact on the global 
competitiveness of European industry, especially  for SMEs. The EU patent may therefore not 
bring the expected benefits as  its use could be low among Eur opean companies currently not 
using English at the EPO. 
Other groups affected, includ ing patent information users and providers of professional 
services related to translations , would be negatively impacted. Only translators with English 
as a mother tongue would benefit as all applications and procedural documents for EU patents 
would be in English. 
4.4. Option 2 
This option corresponds to the current regime under the EPC with pro ceedings in one of 3 
working languages. On grant of  the EU patent, the patent pr oprietor would provide the EPO 
with a translation of the claims into the othe r two working languages. The claims translations 
would not have any legal effect. 
Impact on users of the patent system would be positive. All translations and validation 
requirements after grant would be removed,  bringing significant cost reductions and 
 
EN 6   EN simplification. Translation costs would be about  680 EUR per patent. This corresponds with 
the minimum cost of the claims translations  filed on granting a Eu ropean patent. Unlike 
Option 1, Option 2 would not affect the language regime of the EPC.  
This option would result in bene fits for most groups, including al l users of the patent system 
as well as SMEs, innovators in general and pa tent information users. Only providers of 
translation-related professional services would be negatively affected by removing translation 
requirements after grant. 
4.5. Option 3 
Before grant of the EU patent this option fo llows the current regime  for European patent 
applications. On grant, the claims would be tr anslated into the 4 other most commonly spoken 
EU languages (i.e. the other 2 EPO working languages and the 2 other most spoken EU 
languages, namely Italian and Spanish). 
Option 3 would have a positive impact on users of the patent system in Europe with 
significant simplification and cost reductions. Di rect translation costs would be about 1 360 
EUR per patent. 
Option 3 results in higher costs for the applican ts per patent, but remains affordable to users 
of the patent system and innovators in genera l. Patent information users would be positively 
affected by the availability of claims in the most spoken EU languages. Professional services 
providers would experience a negative  impact, but less than under Option 2. 
4.6. Option 4 
Option 4 corresponds to the Common Political Approach of 3 March 2003. The EU patent 
would be processed, published and granted in one  of the 3 EPO working languages. On grant, 
the patent proprietor would suppl y a translation of the claims into all required official EU 
languages. 
This option would create an EU patent with high translation costs, counterbalancing the 
benefits of a single EU title. Translations of  the claims into the ot her 20 languages currently 
required by EU Member States woul d be about 6 800 EUR per patent. 
Stakeholders have unequivocally rejected the Common Political Approach due to the 
unsatisfactory translation arrangeme nts. Patent users, in partic ular SMEs, clearly state that 
this option for the EU patent would be too expe nsive. They would need to submit and manage 
numerous translations over a limited time period. Furthermore, decisions affecting the unitary 
character of the EU patent would have to be made, for instance, when a translation into one 
language is not filed. 
Notwithstanding these inconvenience s, if the translations were available very early, patent 
information would be more accessible in many European languages. Providers of professional 
services related to translations  would also benefit provided su ch an expensive EU patent is 
used. There may also be insufficient numbers of  specialised patent translators for certain 
languages. 
 
EN 7   EN 5. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
Although Option 1 appears to be a simplified and cost-effective so lution, it woul d result in a 
significant change to the current EPO system pr oviding flexibility in procedural languages. A 
change to English-only could make the majority  of European applicants (using French or 
German) reluctant to apply for an EU patent.  
Option 2 would therefore be more appropriate  as it maintains the successful pre-grant 
linguistic regime of EPO. This option is also cost-effective, simplified and legally secure.  
The 5 language system of Option 3 would be eq ually simplified and legally secure as Option 
2, but with higher direct tran slation costs, it would be much less cost-effective.  
By requiring the translation of claims into all EU official language s, Option 4 would put 
considerable financial costs and risks on users of the system. It  would not be cost-effective, 
simplified, or legally secure. 
6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The EU patent aims to improve the conditions for innovation in Europe. Innovation activity is 
measured by INNO-Metrics, comprising the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) and 
Eurobarometer. The Europe 2020 Strategy also commits to developing a new indicator to 
track innovation. 
The EU patent should coexist alongside the Eur opean and national patent systems. Patenting 
levels published by patent offices  should therefore be monitored to ensure that  these options 
meet the needs of innovators includ ing the translation arrangements.