Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/261 |

---

(2004/C 65 E/275)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3034/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Term of patents for computer-implemented inventions

At the sitting of 24 September 2003 Parliament voted at first reading on the proposal for a directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.

Pursuant to Article 8(b) of the proposal, as amended by Parliament, the Commission is required to submit to Parliament and the Council a report on the issue of whether the rules governing the term of patents and the determination of patentability requirements, and more specifically novelty, inventive step and the proper scope of claims, are adequate.

Can the Commission state whether it regards the standard patent term (20 years) as suitable for software-related inventions? Does the Commission not regard a shorter period as desirable for this kind of high-technology invention? Does the Commission not take the view that such a decision might foster competition on the European market in software-related inventions?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

It is a long-standing feature of patent law that the term of protection is the same for all inventions, in all fields of technology. This principle has been enshrined as a firm legal obligation at the international level in the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. The only deviation from this rule currently practised is to allow for an increased term of protection for certain products which are subject to lengthy regulatory approval procedures and which would therefore be subject, in the absence of such a provision, to a relatively short period of effective protection in the marketplace.

Nevertheless, the Commission is aware of arguments to the effect that the standard term of protection of 20 years is not appropriate for all fields of technology, and for this reason has agreed, in its response to the amendments made at first reading to the proposal, to examine the question. This examination would naturally take account of the need to encourage innovation and competition. It must, however, be appreciated that there would be considerable legal and technical challenges involved in making any change in this area, not the least of which is the practical difficulty in defining, in sufficiently precise and watertight legal terms, the boundaries of the subject-matter to which different terms of protection might be applied. Moreover, even if it should be concluded that it is desirable and feasible to make such a change, for the reasons mentioned above, this would need to be pursued as a policy objective through international negotiations.

---

[Top](#document1)