EU patent talks breakdown without agreement
Internal market ministers meeting on 20 December in Brussels failed to meet the objective that their heads of state had set them - to reach a compromise agreement on the EU community patent. The Belgian Presidency had established a compromise which addressed the sensitivities of certain Member States on which language the patent would use. Having had the 'everything in English' option rejected at an earlier stage, and eager to reduce the total number of languages and therefore costs, the Presidency proposal called for a compromise. Patent applications would be drawn up in one of the three main languages of the EU - English, French or German - as well as the mother tongue of the applicant. Following this, only a summary of the patent application would be required for the full 11 languages. The reduction of costs under this proposal is estimated at a drop from around 11,500 euro to just over 3,000 euro. However it was the French, German and Portuguese delegations who rejected this proposal. One of the reasons, according to news reports, may be concern that most applicants would opt for English. The failure to make a breakthrough means that ministers have failed to abide by the deadline set at the Lisbon council in March 2000, which called for finalisation of the EU Community patent by the end of 2001. The initiative to make progress on the patent means that the Spanish Presidency will have to come up with a new compromise deal to put to ministers next year. Speaking following the meeting, Internal Market Commissioner, Frits Bolkestein, said: 'The Community Patent is therefore a keystone of our declared efforts to make Europe the most competitive economy in the world in 2010. At the Lisbon Summit, Europe's leaders stated that they wanted the Community Patent by the end of 2001. The Council today has made some progress towards this goal thanks to the sterling efforts of the Belgian Presidency, but has not reached agreement, which is very disappointing. We must have a concrete agreement in time for the Barcelona Summit.' The original sticking points, apart from the languages to be used, had been the jurisdiction element of the plan as well as the role of the national patent offices. While there appears to be a consensus on the latter, the German delegation is still not happy with plans laid out for the jurisdictional arrangements for settling claims, according to a Commission source. Under the Presidency compromise, the first instance court would be a central court to ensure uniform application of law, but existing courts in the Member States could be used where objective criteria justify this.