WRITTEN QUESTION E-2923/03 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The patent system and SMUs.
Date: 2003-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European patent, State aid, access to information, administrative formalities, aid to undertakings, citizen-authority relations, diffusion of innovations, insurance, overheads, small and medium-sized enterprises

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/247

Under the EC Treaty, qualification and training requirements remain the primary responsibility of the
Member States. Some minimum co-ordinated training requirements have been adopted at Community level
for some of the main health professions, but most professions, among which many professions in the
health sector, are not subject to any such requirements. The provisions adopted at Union level have the
main objective of ensuring conditions for the recognition of qualifications within the regulated professions.
The adoption of new legislation in this area requires a very large measure of support among the
professions and Member States. The Commission is not aware of any strong and widespread support for
new measures with respect to alternative and complementary medicine.

As far as professional recognition is concerned Council Directive 89/48/EE of 21 December 1988 on a
general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional
education and training of at least three years’ duration (1) and Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a
second general system for the recognition of professional education and training (2) apply to any national
of a Member State wishing to pursue a regulated profession in a host Member State. In this context, the
European Court of Justice has confirmed in its decision of 3 October 1990 (C-61/89 Bouchoucha) that
Article 43 of the EC Treaty does not preclude a Member State from restricting an activity ancillary to
medicine exclusively to persons holding the qualification of doctor of medicine.

In addition, in order to guarantee health protection, the Court of Justice ruled in its decision of 11 July
2002 (C-294/00 Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH) that it must be borne in mind
that the protection of public health is one of the reasons cited in Article 46(1) EC Treaty capable of
justifying restrictions on the freedom to provide establishment and services.

The second topic is that of the Community legislation on alternative medicines. In its Resolution of
29 May 1997, the Parliament called for work to be undertaken to look at the safety and efficacy of
alternative medicinal products. In this connection the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on
traditional herbal medicinal products on January 2002 (3). The Parliament first reading vote took place in
November 2002. Following the modified proposal (4) adopted by the Commission on 9 April 2003 and the
Council political agreement reached in September 2003, the adoption of a final text could take place
before the end of 2003.

With regard to expenditure on alternative medicines, the public health programme does not cover this
issue. With regard to Community research funding, Priority 1 ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology
for health’ and the section on policy oriented research of the Sixth Framework Programme for research,
technological development and demonstration activities covering the period 2002-2006, do not provide
for such research. However,
the
co-ordination of national activities does mention under health, the area of alternative or non-conventional
medicine.

the 6th Framework Programme on support

the section of

for

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.
(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
(3) OJ C 126 E, 28.5.2002.
(4) COM(2003) 161 final.

(2004/C 65 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2923/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: The patent system and SMUs

During the debate in the European Parliament on the proposal for a directive on the patentability of
computer-implemented inventions, many observations were made which showed that, as a general rule,
the application of patent legislation was not an easy task for SMUs. Even innovative SMUs still require
patent protection.

C 65 E/248

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Can the Commission indicate if it has any knowledge of existing mechanisms in the Member States which
assist their SMUs financially or legally and/or administratively in the patenting procedure? Does not the
Commission think that that procedures should be less expensive and more efficient with regard to both
applications for patents and the subsequent defence of patent entitlements? Does not the Commission
think it desirable (cid:1) given the forthcoming introduction of
the Community patent (cid:1) that such a
mechanism should be created at European Union level?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2003)

The question of accessibility to patents by small and medium-sized (SMEs) enterprises is acknowledged to
be an important challenge. The introduction of the Community Patent itself, which would be valid across
all Member States, would have a major benefit for smaller businesses, because any litigation that was
needed to enforce the patent would only be necessary once for the whole Union rather than fifteen times
in each Member State. This would greatly facilitate access to the Single European Market for small
companies and individuals with innovative products.

Concerning the support which may be available in the individual Member States for small and medium-
sized enterprises, two studies have recently been carried out on behalf of the Commission’s Directorate-
General for the Internal Market.

The first was an investigation into the role of the national patent offices in promoting innovation. This
found that the Member States offer through their national patent offices a range of services which are
aimed at increasing awareness of, and accessibility to, the patent system. The report summarises the
services currently available and makes recommendations for future activities.

The second study was concerned with the possible introduction of an insurance against costs for litigation
in patent cases. It found that no Member State currently has any substantive law specifically on patent
litigation insurance, although some cover is available privately, and there has been discussion about the
possibility of legislation in some countries. One of the study’s conclusions was that the introduction of
Community-wide scheme of patent litigation insurance has the potential to offer real benefits, especially
for companies with limited financial means, but that difficult issues were raised and more work would be
needed. In the light of these findings, the Commission is planning a further more detailed study. After this
is completed, the Commission will decide whether action is necessary and if so what this might be.

The reports of both studies are available on the web site of the Commission’s Directorate-General for the
Internal Market at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indprop/patent/index.htm

Another study, ‘Enforcing small firm’s patent rights’, has been carried out on behalf of the Commission’s
Enterprise Directorate-General, reflecting specific concern on the part of the Union that patents are used
less than they might be by SMEs. The study, through a survey of 4 000 SMEs having patent and
prototypes, identifies that two-thirds had experienced attempts to copy their patented inventions. It also
assesses the perception by the firms of the difficulties in enforcing their rights and their position on the
various options to help them to overcome these difficulties.

The report on this study is available at: http://www.cordis.lu/innovation-policy/studies/im_study3.htm

Two examples of initiatives in the Member States to assist SMEs in the patenting procedure, were identified
in the 2003 European Charter for Small Enterprises Implementation Report (1). Although, this list is not
exhaustive, these initiatives were recognised as useful and innovative. The first is an Irish website enabling
the processing of patent and trademark applications on-line as an example of innovative on-line services.
The second is the German programme ‘Knowledge creates markets’ (‘Wissen schafft Märkte’) to raise
universities’ awareness on patents and transfer of research findings.

Besides, the European Charter for Small Enterprises foresees to provide support to SMEs, although not
exclusively, strengthening programmes aimed at promoting technology dissemination towards small
enterprises as well as the capacity of small business to identify, select and adapt technologies.

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/249

With regards to Community support mechanisms to SMEs, the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)-Helpdesk,
a Commission pilot project,
the Community Research Framework Programme by
Commission’s Enterprise Directorate General, was launched in 1998 as aiming to assist potential and
current contractors taking part in Community funded research and development projects with IPR issues.

financed under

Since 1 January 2002,
this IPR-Helpdesk (http://www.cordis.lu/ipr-helpdesk/en/home.html) assists the
target audience, including SMEs, on IPR related issues with a special focus on Community diffusion and
protection rules and issues relating to intellectual property in European research and technological
projects.

In addition, a financial Community contribution can be obtained by contractors, notably SMEs, taking part
in Community funded research and development projects under the 6th Community Research Framework
Programme, for costs incurred during the life of the project in relation with the patenting of inventions
resulting from the project.

in the context of the Commission’s Action Plan to increase investment in research (2),
Furthermore,
a number of actions are aimed at developing European guidelines covering notably IPR arrangements in
collaborations between universities and industry and at promoting Union-wide IPR awareness and training
activities, both are particularly important for SMEs.

Finally, it is to be noted that according to the Community Framework for State Aid for Research and
Development (3), operating costs (such as
incurred directly by SME undertakings
beneficiaries of national aid, as a result of research and development activities, are eligible under the
mentioned Framework, and that the aid granted is considered (cid:1) under certain conditions (cid:1) to be
compatible with the Common Market.

IPR protection)

(1) COM(2003) 21 final.
(2) COM(2003) 226 final.
(3) OJ C 45, 17.2.1996.

(2004/C 65 E/264)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2936/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE)
and Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Electric connections for caravans

Further to the written question tabled in the light of some reports (cf. the 6 and 8 September 2003
editions of ‘Algemeen Dagblad’, a Dutch newspaper) that the electrical equipment of most caravans does
not conform to European safety standards, attention must now also be paid to the electric connections
between caravans and campsite electric bollards or junction boxes. Caravan connections in Europe must
conform to the CEE 17 European Standard. Although the campsite connection must conform to the
standards of the relevant Member State, the power point on that electric bollard must, in principle, also be
equipped with the CEE connector. Any failure to monitor carefully the rules governing this matter may
result in serious potential danger for caravanners.

Is the Commission aware that, in many Member States, campsite connections are not equipped with

1.
a power point with a CEE connector?

Does the Commission agree that the fitting of a power point with a CEE connector must be made

2.
obligatory in order to reduce safety risks to a minimum?

Is the Commission prepared to take steps to ensure that all European caravans and campsites are

3.
equipped with connectors and power points which conform to the CEE European Standard?