BETA


2002/0047(COD) Patent law: patentability of computer-implemented inventions

Progress: Procedure rejected

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead JURI ROCARD Michel (icon: PSE PSE)
Former Responsible Committee JURI MCCARTHY Arlene (icon: PES PES)
Former Committee Opinion CULT ROCARD Michel (icon: PES PES)
Former Committee Opinion ITRE PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL Elly (icon: ELDR ELDR)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
EC Treaty (after Amsterdam) EC 095

Events

2005/07/06
   EP - Text adopted by Parliament, 2nd reading
Details

The European Parliament rejected, by 648 votes to 14 with 18 abstentions, the Council’s common position on the software patent directive. Before the vote, rapporteur Michel ROCARD (PES, FR) said Parliament was split fifty-fifty on the issue and all political groups decided to reject the text rather than risk a result they could not accept.

The common position, if approved, would have allowed patenting of computer-implemented inventions. This outcome was advocated by big software firms, which argued that patents would encourage research spending and defend European inventions from US competition. On the contrary, the directive was criticised by supporters of "open source" software, mainly smaller companies, who claimed copyright already protects their inventions and were afraid that patenting would raise legal costs.

The rejection of the common position means the end of the legislative procedure and the fall of the directive.

Attention now moves to the proposed directive for a Community patent, currently in discussion in the Council, mentioned by a number of MEPs as the appropriate legislative instrument to address the issue of software patentability.

2005/07/06
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
Details

The European Parliament rejected, by 648 votes to 14 with 18 abstentions, the Council’s common position on the software patent directive. Before the vote, rapporteur Michel ROCARD (PES, FR) said Parliament was split fifty-fifty on the issue and all political groups decided to reject the text rather than risk a result they could not accept.

The common position, if approved, would have allowed patenting of computer-implemented inventions. This outcome was advocated by big software firms, which argued that patents would encourage research spending and defend European inventions from US competition. On the contrary, the directive was criticised by supporters of "open source" software, mainly smaller companies, who claimed copyright already protects their inventions and were afraid that patenting would raise legal costs.

The rejection of the common position means the end of the legislative procedure and the fall of the directive.

Attention now moves to the proposed directive for a Community patent, currently in discussion in the Council, mentioned by a number of MEPs as the appropriate legislative instrument to address the issue of software patentability.

Documents
2005/07/05
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2005/06/21
   EP - Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading
Documents
2005/06/21
   EP - Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading
Documents
2005/06/20
   EP - Vote in committee, 2nd reading
Details

The committee adopted the report by Michel ROCARD (PES, FR) broadly approving the Council's common position under the 2nd reading of the codecision procedure, subject to a number of amendments. The report was adopted by 16 votes to 10 with no abstentions, following a lively debate which mirrored the diverging views on this controversial topic. The main amendments were as follows:

- a clearer definition of "technical contribution" as laid down in Article 2 : "The technical contribution is the set of features by which the scope of the patent claim as a whole is considered to differ from the state of the art.............The technical contribution must fulfil the conditions for patentability. In particular, it must be novel and not obvious to a person skilled in the art";

- introduction of an improved version of Parliament's 1st reading amendment clarifying the term "field of technology" based on Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement: "an application domain requiring the use of controllable forces of nature to achieve predictable results in the physical world";

- a new definition was introduced into Article 2, namely, "interoperability" and the operations required to achieve it;

- MEPs clarified expressly in Article 3 that a patent application has to disclose an invention clearly and comprehensively so that it can be implemented by someone working in the field;

- a new clause in Article 5 specified that, "where individual elements of software are used in contexts which do not involve the realisation of any validly claimed product or process, such use will not constitute patent infringement";

- a new Article 6a required Member States to ensure that licences are available to use a patented computer-implemented invention "on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions" when such use is indispensable for achieving interoperability between computer programs and is in the public interest;

- when monitoring the impact of computer-implemented inventions on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the Commission should consider the effects not only on innovation and competition but also on employment in such businesses;

- a new Article 7a proposed setting up a committee focused on SME-related issues to ensure compliance with the monitoring requirements laid down in the directive. The committee would have a mandate to recommend necessary reforms;

- a new Article 7b proposed that the Commission conduct a feasibility study into a Fund to provide financial, technical and administrative support for SMEs dealing with issues related to the patentability of computer-implemented inventions;

- the Commission should report to Parliament and the Council on the effects of the directive within 3 years rather than 5 years as proposed;

- MEPs wanted to see a single patent system across the EU, in the interests of legal certainty, and therefore introduced a new clause into Article 8 requiring the Commission to submit a proposal within a year for an effective European Community patent which provides for democratic control by the European Parliament over the European Patent Office (EPO) and the European Patent Convention (EPC). Moreover, in a new Article 8a , the Council was required to report to Parliament each year on the activities of Member States that are Contracting States to the EPC in the administrative council of the EPO.

2005/06/10
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2005/05/04
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2005/04/14
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
2005/03/09
   EC - Commission communication on Council's position
Details

The Commission has indicated that it accepts the common position, even though this differs from the Commission’s original proposal in certain respects. In general, the Commission believes that the common position strikes an acceptable balance between the interests of right holders and those of competitors and consumers (including in the open source community). This balance is further safeguarded by the new requirements for the Commission to monitor the impact of computer-implemented inventions in particular on small and medium-sized enterprises and on the open source community.

As far as the Commission is concerned, the directive continues to address the key objective stated in the explanatory memorandum of the Commission’s proposal, namely the harmonisation of patent law between the Member States and the resolution of legal uncertainty in this field. It is crucial to note that there is to date no Community legislative instrument which affects general patent law either in a horizontal manner or specifically relating to computer-implemented inventions. The adoption of this directive would therefore have the effect of bringing patent law in this field, for the very first time, explicitly within Community jurisdiction.

A failure to adopt a directive would prevent Community institutions from exercising control in this strategic area of the European economy, which would thus remain within the remit only of national patent offices and courts and the European Patent Office in Munich.

The following statement is entered in the minutes of the Council adopting the common position : the Commission considers that Article 6, read in conjunction with Recital 22, permits any acts as described by Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs by copyright, including any acts necessary to ensure interoperability, without the need for authorisation from the patent’s right holder.

2005/03/07
   CSL - Council position
Details

The Council, acting by qualified majority, has adopted a common position which incorporates the substance of some 25 of Parliament’s amendments at first reading. The Council has amended or merged a number of recitals appearing in the Commission's proposal and has adopted a few additional ones.

Throughout the common position, the Council has sought to strike a reasonable and workable balance between the interests of rightholders and those of other parties concerned.

The Council’s main amendments are as follows:

- it has partly followed the European Parliament’s amendments on definitions by deleting the words “one or more prima facie novel” from the definition of computer implemented invention”, on the grounds that these are redundant and risk creating confusion as regards their relationship with the novelty test, which applies at the stage of the examination of the patentability of any invention. In addition, the Council replaced “technical field” with “field of technology”, which is the term commonly used in international agreements on patent law, such as the TRIPS Agreement; inserted the words “new and”, in order to clarify the criteria for “technical contribution”; added a second sentence, which is basically the provision of Article 4(3) of the Commission proposal slightly amended in order to clarify that even if non-technical features may be taken into consideration when assessing the technical contribution of a given computer implemented invention, it is indispensable that any patent claim comprises technical features as well;

- it includes an Article which obliges Member States to ensure in their national law that computer-implemented inventions are considered to belong to a field of technology. In accordance with Parliament’s amendment, the Council has decided to delete the Article which considers that a general obligation of this nature would be difficult to transpose into national law;

- in order to avoid any misunderstanding, the Council has included a paragraph which comprises a clear statement to the effect that a computer program as such cannot constitute a patentable invention;

- it includes a paragraph was added in order to clarify that in certain circumstances and under strict conditions a patent can cover a claim to a computer program, be it on its own or on a carrier. The Council considers that this would align the Directive on standard current practice both at the European Patent Office and in Member States;

- the Council has taken on board European Parliament’s amendment as regards the relationship with Directive 91/250/EC, considering that this is clearer than the text of the Commission’s proposal. It has removed references to provisions concerning semiconductor topographies or trade marks as these were considered as irrelevant in this context;

- Council has maintained the text of the Commission proposal concerning the report on the effects of the Directive. In addition, it also added a reference to the Community’s international obligations. This is understood as primarily a reference to the TRIPS Agreement. The reference to the Community Patent was deleted as this is beyond the scope of the current Directive;

- the Council stipulated a transposition period of twenty four months (not defined in the Commission’s proposal). Parliament envisaged eighteen months.

2005/03/07
   CSL - Council Meeting
2005/03/06
   CSL - Council position published
Details

The Council, acting by qualified majority, has adopted a common position which incorporates the substance of some 25 of Parliament’s amendments at first reading. The Council has amended or merged a number of recitals appearing in the Commission's proposal and has adopted a few additional ones.

Throughout the common position, the Council has sought to strike a reasonable and workable balance between the interests of rightholders and those of other parties concerned.

The Council’s main amendments are as follows:

- it has partly followed the European Parliament’s amendments on definitions by deleting the words “one or more prima facie novel” from the definition of computer implemented invention”, on the grounds that these are redundant and risk creating confusion as regards their relationship with the novelty test, which applies at the stage of the examination of the patentability of any invention. In addition, the Council replaced “technical field” with “field of technology”, which is the term commonly used in international agreements on patent law, such as the TRIPS Agreement; inserted the words “new and”, in order to clarify the criteria for “technical contribution”; added a second sentence, which is basically the provision of Article 4(3) of the Commission proposal slightly amended in order to clarify that even if non-technical features may be taken into consideration when assessing the technical contribution of a given computer implemented invention, it is indispensable that any patent claim comprises technical features as well;

- it includes an Article which obliges Member States to ensure in their national law that computer-implemented inventions are considered to belong to a field of technology. In accordance with Parliament’s amendment, the Council has decided to delete the Article which considers that a general obligation of this nature would be difficult to transpose into national law;

- in order to avoid any misunderstanding, the Council has included a paragraph which comprises a clear statement to the effect that a computer program as such cannot constitute a patentable invention;

- it includes a paragraph was added in order to clarify that in certain circumstances and under strict conditions a patent can cover a claim to a computer program, be it on its own or on a carrier. The Council considers that this would align the Directive on standard current practice both at the European Patent Office and in Member States;

- the Council has taken on board European Parliament’s amendment as regards the relationship with Directive 91/250/EC, considering that this is clearer than the text of the Commission’s proposal. It has removed references to provisions concerning semiconductor topographies or trade marks as these were considered as irrelevant in this context;

- Council has maintained the text of the Commission proposal concerning the report on the effects of the Directive. In addition, it also added a reference to the Community’s international obligations. This is understood as primarily a reference to the TRIPS Agreement. The reference to the Community Patent was deleted as this is beyond the scope of the current Directive;

- the Council stipulated a transposition period of twenty four months (not defined in the Commission’s proposal). Parliament envisaged eighteen months.

Documents
2004/12/17
   CSL - Council statement on its position
Documents
2004/09/14
   EP - ROCARD Michel (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2004/05/17
   CSL - Council Meeting
2003/09/24
   EP - Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2003/09/24
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading
Documents
2003/09/23
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2003/06/17
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
2003/06/17
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading
2003/06/16
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
Documents
2002/11/14
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2002/11/14
   CSL - Council Meeting
2002/09/18
   ESC - Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report
2002/03/27
   EP - PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL Elly (ELDR) appointed as rapporteur in ITRE
2002/03/26
   EP - ROCARD Michel (PES) appointed as rapporteur in CULT
2002/03/01
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2002/03/01
   CSL - Council Meeting
2002/02/27
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading
2002/02/20
   EC - Legislative proposal
2002/02/19
   EC - Legislative proposal published
2000/05/25
   EP - MCCARTHY Arlene (PES) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2000/04/10
   EC - Document attached to the procedure

Documents

Votes

Recommandation Rocard A6-0207/2005 - ams. 62,65,71 #

2005/07/06 Outcome: +: 648, 0: 18, -: 14
DE FR GB IT ES PL NL PT EL HU BE CZ AT SE SK FI DK LT SI CY LU IE EE MT LV
Total
92
74
74
65
51
51
26
24
22
21
20
24
18
17
13
14
12
11
7
6
6
13
5
5
9
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
251

Denmark PPE-DE

For (1)

1
2

Slovenia PPE-DE

Abstain (1)

4

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2
icon: PSE PSE
193

Czechia PSE

2

Lithuania PSE

2

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Ireland PSE

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
79

Hungary ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

2

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
40

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
35

France GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
32

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Greece IND/DEM

1

Czechia IND/DEM

1

Sweden IND/DEM

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Denmark IND/DEM

1

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
26

United Kingdom NI

3

Czechia NI

1

Austria NI

2
icon: UEN UEN
24

Denmark UEN

For (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

2

Latvia UEN

Abstain (1)

4

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

docs/3
date
2003-01-29T00:00:00
docs
title: PE312.545/DEF
committee
CULT
type
Committee opinion
body
EP
docs/4
date
2003-02-14T00:00:00
docs
title: PE327.249
type
Committee draft report
body
EP
docs/5
date
2003-03-11T00:00:00
docs
title: PE321.981/DEF
committee
ITRE
type
Committee opinion
body
EP
docs/6
date
2003-04-16T00:00:00
docs
title: PE327.249/AM
type
Amendments tabled in committee
body
EP
docs/7
date
2003-05-15T00:00:00
docs
title: PE327.249/AC1
type
Amendments tabled in committee
body
EP
docs/8
date
2005-05-04T00:00:00
docs
title: PE357.845
type
Amendments tabled in committee
body
EP
docs/8
date
2003-06-12T00:00:00
docs
title: PE327.249/AC4
type
Amendments tabled in committee
body
EP
docs/8/docs/0/url
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-AM-357845_EN.html
docs/9
date
2005-06-10T00:00:00
docs
title: PE360.003
type
Amendments tabled in committee
body
EP
docs/9
date
2003-06-12T00:00:00
docs
title: PE327.249/AC6
type
Amendments tabled in committee
body
EP
docs/9/docs/0/url
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-AM-360003_EN.html
docs/15
date
2005-04-29T00:00:00
docs
title: PE357.776
type
Committee draft report
body
EP
docs/16
date
2005-05-04T00:00:00
docs
title: PE357.845
type
Amendments tabled in committee
body
EP
docs/17
date
2005-06-10T00:00:00
docs
title: PE360.003
type
Amendments tabled in committee
body
EP
events/0/date
Old
2002-02-20T00:00:00
New
2002-02-19T00:00:00
events/5/date
Old
2003-06-17T00:00:00
New
2003-06-16T00:00:00
events/8/date
Old
2005-03-07T00:00:00
New
2005-03-06T00:00:00
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2002/0092/COM_COM(2002)0092_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2002/0092/COM_COM(2002)0092_EN.pdf
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
https://dm.eesc.europa.eu/EESCDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:1031)(documentyear:2002)(documentlanguage:EN)
New
https://dmsearch.eesc.europa.eu/search/public?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:1031)(documentyear:2002)(documentlanguage:EN)
docs/10/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-5-2003-0238_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-5-2003-0238_EN.html
docs/11/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-5-2003-0402_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-5-2003-0402_EN.html
docs/14/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0083/COM_COM(2005)0083_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0083/COM_COM(2005)0083_EN.pdf
docs/18/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2005-0207_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2005-0207_EN.html
docs/19/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2005-0275_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2005-0275_EN.html
events/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2002/0092/COM_COM(2002)0092_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2002/0092/COM_COM(2002)0092_EN.pdf
events/1/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading
events/4/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee, 1st reading
events/5
date
2003-06-17T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-5-2003-0238_EN.html title: A5-0238/2003
events/5
date
2003-06-17T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-5-2003-0238_EN.html title: A5-0238/2003
events/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20030923&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=20030923&type=CRE
events/7
date
2003-09-24T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-5-2003-0402_EN.html title: T5-0402/2003
summary
events/7
date
2003-09-24T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-5-2003-0402_EN.html title: T5-0402/2003
summary
events/11/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2005-0207_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2005-0207_EN.html
events/12/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20050705&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=20050705&type=CRE
events/13/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2005-0275_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2005-0275_EN.html
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: ROCARD Michel date: 2004-09-14T00:00:00 group: Socialist Group in the European Parliament abbr: PSE
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2004-09-14T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: ROCARD Michel group: Socialist Group in the European Parliament abbr: PSE
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs and Internal Market
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: MCCARTHY Arlene date: 2000-05-25T00:00:00 group: Party of European Socialists abbr: PES
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs and Internal Market
committee
JURI
date
2000-05-25T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: MCCARTHY Arlene group: Party of European Socialists abbr: PES
committees/2
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, External Trade, Research, Energy
committee
ITRE
rapporteur
name: PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL Elly date: 2002-03-27T00:00:00 group: European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party abbr: ELDR
committees/2
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, External Trade, Research, Energy
committee
ITRE
date
2002-03-27T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL Elly group: European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party abbr: ELDR
committees/3
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport
committee
CULT
rapporteur
name: ROCARD Michel date: 2002-03-26T00:00:00 group: Party of European Socialists abbr: PES
committees/3
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport
committee
CULT
date
2002-03-26T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: ROCARD Michel group: Party of European Socialists abbr: PES
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2002/0092/COM_COM(2002)0092_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2002/0092/COM_COM(2002)0092_EN.pdf
docs/10/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-2003-238&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-5-2003-0238_EN.html
docs/11/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-2003-402
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-5-2003-0402_EN.html
docs/14/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0083/COM_COM(2005)0083_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0083/COM_COM(2005)0083_EN.pdf
docs/18/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-207&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2005-0207_EN.html
docs/19/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-275
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2005-0275_EN.html
events/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2002/0092/COM_COM(2002)0092_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2002/0092/COM_COM(2002)0092_EN.pdf
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-2003-238&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-5-2003-0238_EN.html
events/7/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-2003-402
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-5-2003-0402_EN.html
events/11/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-207&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2005-0207_EN.html
events/13/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-275
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2005-0275_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2002-02-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2002/0092/COM_COM(2002)0092_EN.pdf title: COM(2002)0092 type: Legislative proposal published celexid: CELEX:52002PC0092:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title: Internal Market and Services type: Legislative proposal published
  • date: 2002-02-27T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: CULT date: 2002-03-26T00:00:00 committee_full: Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2002-03-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, External Trade, Research, Energy rapporteur: group: ELDR name: PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL Elly body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2004-09-14T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2000-05-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs and Internal Market rapporteur: group: PSE name: MCCARTHY Arlene
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2412 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2412*&MEET_DATE=01/03/2002 type: Debate in Council title: 2412 council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) date: 2002-03-01T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • body: CSL meeting_id: X017 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2462*&MEET_DATE=14/11/2002 type: Debate in Council title: 2462 council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) date: 2002-11-14T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: CULT date: 2002-03-26T00:00:00 committee_full: Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2002-03-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, External Trade, Research, Energy rapporteur: group: ELDR name: PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL Elly body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2004-09-14T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2000-05-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs and Internal Market rapporteur: group: PSE name: MCCARTHY Arlene docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-2003-238&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A5-0238/2003 date: 2003-06-17T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2003-09-22T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) meeting_id: X019
  • date: 2003-09-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20030923&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2003-09-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-2003-402 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T5-0402/2003 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2004-05-17T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) meeting_id: 2583
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2645 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=11979%2F04&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC type: Council position published title: 11979/1/2004 council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) date: 2005-03-07T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2005-04-14T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2004-09-14T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2000-05-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs and Internal Market rapporteur: group: PSE name: MCCARTHY Arlene
  • date: 2005-06-20T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2004-09-14T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2000-05-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs and Internal Market rapporteur: group: PSE name: MCCARTHY Arlene type: Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • date: 2005-06-21T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-207&language=EN type: Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading title: A6-0207/2005 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2004-09-14T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2000-05-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs and Internal Market rapporteur: group: PSE name: MCCARTHY Arlene type: Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading
  • date: 2005-07-05T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20050705&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2005-07-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-275 type: Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading title: T6-0275/2005 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
commission
  • body: EC dg: Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union commissioner: --
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2004-09-14T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: ROCARD Michel group: Socialist Group in the European Parliament abbr: PSE
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
CULT
date
2002-03-26T00:00:00
committee_full
Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport
rapporteur
group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs and Internal Market
committee
JURI
date
2000-05-25T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: MCCARTHY Arlene group: Party of European Socialists abbr: PES
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
ITRE
date
2002-03-27T00:00:00
committee_full
Industry, External Trade, Research, Energy
rapporteur
group: ELDR name: PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL Elly
committees/2
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, External Trade, Research, Energy
committee
ITRE
date
2002-03-27T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL Elly group: European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party abbr: ELDR
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
JURI
date
2004-09-14T00:00:00
committee_full
Legal Affairs
rapporteur
group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel
committees/3
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport
committee
CULT
date
2002-03-26T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: ROCARD Michel group: Party of European Socialists abbr: PES
committees/3
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
JURI
date
2000-05-25T00:00:00
committee_full
Legal Affairs and Internal Market
rapporteur
group: PSE name: MCCARTHY Arlene
council
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) meeting_id: 2645 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2645*&MEET_DATE=07/03/2005 date: 2005-03-07T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) meeting_id: 2583 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2583*&MEET_DATE=17/05/2004 date: 2004-05-17T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) meeting_id: 2462 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2462*&MEET_DATE=14/11/2002 date: 2002-11-14T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) meeting_id: 2412 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2412*&MEET_DATE=01/03/2002 date: 2002-03-01T00:00:00
docs
  • date: 2000-04-10T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2000&nu_doc=199 title: EUR-Lex title: COM(2000)0199 summary: type: Document attached to the procedure body: EC
  • date: 2002-02-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2002/0092/COM_COM(2002)0092_EN.pdf title: COM(2002)0092 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2002&nu_doc=92 title: EUR-Lex url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2002:151E:SOM:EN:HTML title: OJ C 151 25.06.2002, p. 0129 E summary: type: Legislative proposal body: EC
  • date: 2002-09-18T00:00:00 docs: url: https://dm.eesc.europa.eu/EESCDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:1031)(documentyear:2002)(documentlanguage:EN) title: CES1031/2002 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2003:061:TOC title: OJ C 061 14.03.2003, p. 0154 type: Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report body: ESC
  • date: 2003-01-29T00:00:00 docs: title: PE312.545/DEF committee: CULT type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2003-02-14T00:00:00 docs: title: PE327.249 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2003-03-11T00:00:00 docs: title: PE321.981/DEF committee: ITRE type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2003-04-16T00:00:00 docs: title: PE327.249/AM type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2003-05-15T00:00:00 docs: title: PE327.249/AC1 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2003-06-12T00:00:00 docs: title: PE327.249/AC4 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2003-06-12T00:00:00 docs: title: PE327.249/AC6 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2003-06-17T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-2003-238&language=EN title: A5-0238/2003 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2003-09-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-2003-402 title: T5-0402/2003 title: OJ C 077 26.03.2004, p. 0087-0229 E summary: type: Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2004-12-17T00:00:00 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=16120%2F04&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC title: 16120/2004 type: Council statement on its position body: CSL
  • date: 2005-03-07T00:00:00 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=11979%2F04&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC title: 11979/1/2004 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2005:144E:SOM:EN:HTML title: OJ C 144 14.06.2005, p. 0009-0015 E summary: The Council, acting by qualified majority, has adopted a common position which incorporates the substance of some 25 of Parliament’s amendments at first reading. The Council has amended or merged a number of recitals appearing in the Commission's proposal and has adopted a few additional ones. Throughout the common position, the Council has sought to strike a reasonable and workable balance between the interests of rightholders and those of other parties concerned. The Council’s main amendments are as follows: - it has partly followed the European Parliament’s amendments on definitions by deleting the words “one or more prima facie novel” from the definition of computer implemented invention”, on the grounds that these are redundant and risk creating confusion as regards their relationship with the novelty test, which applies at the stage of the examination of the patentability of any invention. In addition, the Council replaced “technical field” with “field of technology”, which is the term commonly used in international agreements on patent law, such as the TRIPS Agreement; inserted the words “new and”, in order to clarify the criteria for “technical contribution”; added a second sentence, which is basically the provision of Article 4(3) of the Commission proposal slightly amended in order to clarify that even if non-technical features may be taken into consideration when assessing the technical contribution of a given computer implemented invention, it is indispensable that any patent claim comprises technical features as well; - it includes an Article which obliges Member States to ensure in their national law that computer-implemented inventions are considered to belong to a field of technology. In accordance with Parliament’s amendment, the Council has decided to delete the Article which considers that a general obligation of this nature would be difficult to transpose into national law; - in order to avoid any misunderstanding, the Council has included a paragraph which comprises a clear statement to the effect that a computer program as such cannot constitute a patentable invention; - it includes a paragraph was added in order to clarify that in certain circumstances and under strict conditions a patent can cover a claim to a computer program, be it on its own or on a carrier. The Council considers that this would align the Directive on standard current practice both at the European Patent Office and in Member States; - the Council has taken on board European Parliament’s amendment as regards the relationship with Directive 91/250/EC, considering that this is clearer than the text of the Commission’s proposal. It has removed references to provisions concerning semiconductor topographies or trade marks as these were considered as irrelevant in this context; - Council has maintained the text of the Commission proposal concerning the report on the effects of the Directive. In addition, it also added a reference to the Community’s international obligations. This is understood as primarily a reference to the TRIPS Agreement. The reference to the Community Patent was deleted as this is beyond the scope of the current Directive; - the Council stipulated a transposition period of twenty four months (not defined in the Commission’s proposal). Parliament envisaged eighteen months. type: Council position body: CSL
  • date: 2005-03-09T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0083/COM_COM(2005)0083_EN.pdf title: COM(2005)0083 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2005&nu_doc=83 title: EUR-Lex summary: The Commission has indicated that it accepts the common position, even though this differs from the Commission’s original proposal in certain respects. In general, the Commission believes that the common position strikes an acceptable balance between the interests of right holders and those of competitors and consumers (including in the open source community). This balance is further safeguarded by the new requirements for the Commission to monitor the impact of computer-implemented inventions in particular on small and medium-sized enterprises and on the open source community. As far as the Commission is concerned, the directive continues to address the key objective stated in the explanatory memorandum of the Commission’s proposal, namely the harmonisation of patent law between the Member States and the resolution of legal uncertainty in this field. It is crucial to note that there is to date no Community legislative instrument which affects general patent law either in a horizontal manner or specifically relating to computer-implemented inventions. The adoption of this directive would therefore have the effect of bringing patent law in this field, for the very first time, explicitly within Community jurisdiction. A failure to adopt a directive would prevent Community institutions from exercising control in this strategic area of the European economy, which would thus remain within the remit only of national patent offices and courts and the European Patent Office in Munich. The following statement is entered in the minutes of the Council adopting the common position : the Commission considers that Article 6, read in conjunction with Recital 22, permits any acts as described by Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs by copyright, including any acts necessary to ensure interoperability, without the need for authorisation from the patent’s right holder. type: Commission communication on Council's position body: EC
  • date: 2005-04-29T00:00:00 docs: title: PE357.776 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2005-05-04T00:00:00 docs: title: PE357.845 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2005-06-10T00:00:00 docs: title: PE360.003 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2005-06-21T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-207&language=EN title: A6-0207/2005 type: Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading body: EP
  • date: 2005-07-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-275 title: T6-0275/2005 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:157E:SOM:EN:HTML title: OJ C 157 06.07.2006, p. 0095-0265 E summary: The European Parliament rejected, by 648 votes to 14 with 18 abstentions, the Council’s common position on the software patent directive. Before the vote, rapporteur Michel ROCARD (PES, FR) said Parliament was split fifty-fifty on the issue and all political groups decided to reject the text rather than risk a result they could not accept. The common position, if approved, would have allowed patenting of computer-implemented inventions. This outcome was advocated by big software firms, which argued that patents would encourage research spending and defend European inventions from US competition. On the contrary, the directive was criticised by supporters of "open source" software, mainly smaller companies, who claimed copyright already protects their inventions and were afraid that patenting would raise legal costs. The rejection of the common position means the end of the legislative procedure and the fall of the directive. Attention now moves to the proposed directive for a Community patent, currently in discussion in the Council, mentioned by a number of MEPs as the appropriate legislative instrument to address the issue of software patentability. type: Text adopted by Parliament, 2nd reading body: EP
events
  • date: 2002-02-20T00:00:00 type: Legislative proposal published body: EC docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2002/0092/COM_COM(2002)0092_EN.pdf title: COM(2002)0092 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2002&nu_doc=92 title: EUR-Lex summary:
  • date: 2002-02-27T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2002-03-01T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2412*&MEET_DATE=01/03/2002 title: 2412
  • date: 2002-11-14T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2462*&MEET_DATE=14/11/2002 title: 2462
  • date: 2003-06-17T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary:
  • date: 2003-06-17T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-2003-238&language=EN title: A5-0238/2003
  • date: 2003-09-23T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20030923&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2003-09-24T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-2003-402 title: T5-0402/2003 summary:
  • date: 2005-03-07T00:00:00 type: Council position published body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=11979%2F04&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC title: 11979/1/2004 summary: The Council, acting by qualified majority, has adopted a common position which incorporates the substance of some 25 of Parliament’s amendments at first reading. The Council has amended or merged a number of recitals appearing in the Commission's proposal and has adopted a few additional ones. Throughout the common position, the Council has sought to strike a reasonable and workable balance between the interests of rightholders and those of other parties concerned. The Council’s main amendments are as follows: - it has partly followed the European Parliament’s amendments on definitions by deleting the words “one or more prima facie novel” from the definition of computer implemented invention”, on the grounds that these are redundant and risk creating confusion as regards their relationship with the novelty test, which applies at the stage of the examination of the patentability of any invention. In addition, the Council replaced “technical field” with “field of technology”, which is the term commonly used in international agreements on patent law, such as the TRIPS Agreement; inserted the words “new and”, in order to clarify the criteria for “technical contribution”; added a second sentence, which is basically the provision of Article 4(3) of the Commission proposal slightly amended in order to clarify that even if non-technical features may be taken into consideration when assessing the technical contribution of a given computer implemented invention, it is indispensable that any patent claim comprises technical features as well; - it includes an Article which obliges Member States to ensure in their national law that computer-implemented inventions are considered to belong to a field of technology. In accordance with Parliament’s amendment, the Council has decided to delete the Article which considers that a general obligation of this nature would be difficult to transpose into national law; - in order to avoid any misunderstanding, the Council has included a paragraph which comprises a clear statement to the effect that a computer program as such cannot constitute a patentable invention; - it includes a paragraph was added in order to clarify that in certain circumstances and under strict conditions a patent can cover a claim to a computer program, be it on its own or on a carrier. The Council considers that this would align the Directive on standard current practice both at the European Patent Office and in Member States; - the Council has taken on board European Parliament’s amendment as regards the relationship with Directive 91/250/EC, considering that this is clearer than the text of the Commission’s proposal. It has removed references to provisions concerning semiconductor topographies or trade marks as these were considered as irrelevant in this context; - Council has maintained the text of the Commission proposal concerning the report on the effects of the Directive. In addition, it also added a reference to the Community’s international obligations. This is understood as primarily a reference to the TRIPS Agreement. The reference to the Community Patent was deleted as this is beyond the scope of the current Directive; - the Council stipulated a transposition period of twenty four months (not defined in the Commission’s proposal). Parliament envisaged eighteen months.
  • date: 2005-04-14T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading body: EP
  • date: 2005-06-20T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 2nd reading body: EP summary: The committee adopted the report by Michel ROCARD (PES, FR) broadly approving the Council's common position under the 2nd reading of the codecision procedure, subject to a number of amendments. The report was adopted by 16 votes to 10 with no abstentions, following a lively debate which mirrored the diverging views on this controversial topic. The main amendments were as follows: - a clearer definition of "technical contribution" as laid down in Article 2 : "The technical contribution is the set of features by which the scope of the patent claim as a whole is considered to differ from the state of the art.............The technical contribution must fulfil the conditions for patentability. In particular, it must be novel and not obvious to a person skilled in the art"; - introduction of an improved version of Parliament's 1st reading amendment clarifying the term "field of technology" based on Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement: "an application domain requiring the use of controllable forces of nature to achieve predictable results in the physical world"; - a new definition was introduced into Article 2, namely, "interoperability" and the operations required to achieve it; - MEPs clarified expressly in Article 3 that a patent application has to disclose an invention clearly and comprehensively so that it can be implemented by someone working in the field; - a new clause in Article 5 specified that, "where individual elements of software are used in contexts which do not involve the realisation of any validly claimed product or process, such use will not constitute patent infringement"; - a new Article 6a required Member States to ensure that licences are available to use a patented computer-implemented invention "on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions" when such use is indispensable for achieving interoperability between computer programs and is in the public interest; - when monitoring the impact of computer-implemented inventions on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the Commission should consider the effects not only on innovation and competition but also on employment in such businesses; - a new Article 7a proposed setting up a committee focused on SME-related issues to ensure compliance with the monitoring requirements laid down in the directive. The committee would have a mandate to recommend necessary reforms; - a new Article 7b proposed that the Commission conduct a feasibility study into a Fund to provide financial, technical and administrative support for SMEs dealing with issues related to the patentability of computer-implemented inventions; - the Commission should report to Parliament and the Council on the effects of the directive within 3 years rather than 5 years as proposed; - MEPs wanted to see a single patent system across the EU, in the interests of legal certainty, and therefore introduced a new clause into Article 8 requiring the Commission to submit a proposal within a year for an effective European Community patent which provides for democratic control by the European Parliament over the European Patent Office (EPO) and the European Patent Convention (EPC). Moreover, in a new Article 8a , the Council was required to report to Parliament each year on the activities of Member States that are Contracting States to the EPC in the administrative council of the EPO.
  • date: 2005-06-21T00:00:00 type: Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-207&language=EN title: A6-0207/2005
  • date: 2005-07-05T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20050705&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2005-07-06T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-275 title: T6-0275/2005 summary: The European Parliament rejected, by 648 votes to 14 with 18 abstentions, the Council’s common position on the software patent directive. Before the vote, rapporteur Michel ROCARD (PES, FR) said Parliament was split fifty-fifty on the issue and all political groups decided to reject the text rather than risk a result they could not accept. The common position, if approved, would have allowed patenting of computer-implemented inventions. This outcome was advocated by big software firms, which argued that patents would encourage research spending and defend European inventions from US competition. On the contrary, the directive was criticised by supporters of "open source" software, mainly smaller companies, who claimed copyright already protects their inventions and were afraid that patenting would raise legal costs. The rejection of the common position means the end of the legislative procedure and the fall of the directive. Attention now moves to the proposed directive for a Community patent, currently in discussion in the Council, mentioned by a number of MEPs as the appropriate legislative instrument to address the issue of software patentability.
other
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Former Council configuration
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title: Internal Market and Services
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
JURI/6/27042
New
  • JURI/6/27042
procedure/subject
Old
  • 3.50.16 Industrial property, European patent, Community patent, design and pattern
New
3.50.16
Industrial property, European patent, Community patent, design and pattern
activities/3/docs/0/title
Old
X017
New
2462
activities/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=X017*&MEET_DATE=14/11/2002
New
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2462*&MEET_DATE=14/11/2002
activities/3/meeting_id
Old
2462
New
X017
links/European Commission/title
Old
PreLex
New
EUR-Lex
activities/3/meeting_id
Old
X017
New
2462
activities
  • date: 2002-02-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2002/0092/COM_COM(2002)0092_EN.pdf title: COM(2002)0092 type: Legislative proposal published celexid: CELEX:52002PC0092:EN body: EC type: Legislative proposal published commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title: Internal Market and Services
  • date: 2002-02-27T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: CULT date: 2002-03-26T00:00:00 committee_full: Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2002-03-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, External Trade, Research, Energy rapporteur: group: ELDR name: PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL Elly body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2004-09-14T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2000-05-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs and Internal Market rapporteur: group: PSE name: MCCARTHY Arlene
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2412 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2412*&MEET_DATE=01/03/2002 type: Debate in Council title: 2412 council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) date: 2002-03-01T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • body: CSL meeting_id: X017 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=X017*&MEET_DATE=14/11/2002 type: Debate in Council title: X017 council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) date: 2002-11-14T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: CULT date: 2002-03-26T00:00:00 committee_full: Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2002-03-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, External Trade, Research, Energy rapporteur: group: ELDR name: PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL Elly body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2004-09-14T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2000-05-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs and Internal Market rapporteur: group: PSE name: MCCARTHY Arlene docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-2003-238&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A5-0238/2003 date: 2003-06-17T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2003-09-22T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) meeting_id: X019
  • date: 2003-09-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20030923&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2003-09-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-2003-402 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T5-0402/2003 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2004-05-17T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) meeting_id: 2583
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2645 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=11979%2F04&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC type: Council position published title: 11979/1/2004 council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) date: 2005-03-07T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2005-04-14T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2004-09-14T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2000-05-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs and Internal Market rapporteur: group: PSE name: MCCARTHY Arlene
  • date: 2005-06-20T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2004-09-14T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2000-05-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs and Internal Market rapporteur: group: PSE name: MCCARTHY Arlene type: Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • date: 2005-06-21T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-207&language=EN type: Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading title: A6-0207/2005 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2004-09-14T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2000-05-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs and Internal Market rapporteur: group: PSE name: MCCARTHY Arlene type: Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading
  • date: 2005-07-05T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20050705&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2005-07-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-275 type: Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading title: T6-0275/2005 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: CULT date: 2002-03-26T00:00:00 committee_full: Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2002-03-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, External Trade, Research, Energy rapporteur: group: ELDR name: PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL Elly
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2004-09-14T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PSE name: ROCARD Michel
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2000-05-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs and Internal Market rapporteur: group: PSE name: MCCARTHY Arlene
links
European Commission
other
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Former Council configuration
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title: Internal Market and Services
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
JURI/6/27042
reference
2002/0047(COD)
subtype
Legislation
legal_basis
EC Treaty (after Amsterdam) EC 095
stage_reached
Procedure rejected
instrument
Directive
title
Patent law: patentability of computer-implemented inventions
type
COD - Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision procedure)
subject
3.50.16 Industrial property, European patent, Community patent, design and pattern