13 Amendments of Antonio MASIP HIDALGO related to 2011/2176(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Acknowledges that the establishment of a coherent patent litigation system in the Member States taking part in the enhanced cooperation should be accomplished by an international agreement (‘the Agreement’) between these Member States (‘Contracting Member States’) creating a Unified Patent Court (‘the Court’); nevertheless expresses doubt, in the light of various texts, such as Opinion 1/09 of the European Court of Justice, as to whether that international agreement is compatible with the TFEU;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 – point ii
Paragraph 7 – point ii
(ii) the Agreement should come into force when a minimum of ninll the Contracting Member States, including the three Member States in which the highest number of European patents was in force in the year preceding the year in which the Diplomatic Conference for the signature of the Agreement takes place, have ratified the Agreement and when Regulation XXX of the European Parliament and of the Council implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection and Council Regulation XXX implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements are in force;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 – point iii
Paragraph 7 – point iii
(iii) the Court should be a Court common to the Contracting Member States and subject to the same obligations as any national court with regard to compliance with Union law; thus, for example, the Court shall cooperate with the Court of Justice by applying Article 267 TFEUin line with Opinion 1/09 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, national courts should have jurisdiction to hear actions based on EU law and be able to refer questions for a preliminary ruling;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 – point iv
Paragraph 7 – point iv
(iv) the Court should act in line with the body of Union law and respect its primacy; in the event that the Court of Appeal infringes Union law, Contracting Member States should be jointly liable for damages incurred by the parties to the respective procedure; infringement proceedings pursuant to Articles 258, 259 and 260 TFEU against all Contracting Member States should apply, as set out in the TFEU;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 – point i
Paragraph 10 – point i
(i) acknowledges that the composition of the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance should be multinational; considers that the composition must be adapted to the existing court structures; proposes, therefore, that the composition of the local divisions should become multinational after a transitional period of five years, while it has to be ensured that the standard of quality and efficiency of the existing structures is not reduced; considers that the period of five years should be used for intensive training and prepar from the outset, and that the entry into force of the Agreement must allow sufficient time for the implementation ofor the judgessystem;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 – point ii
Paragraph 10 – point ii
(ii) believes that the Court should be composed of both legally qualified and technically qualified judges; the judges should ensure the highest standards of competence and proven capacity in the field of patent litigation and antitrust law; this qualification should be proven inter alia by relevant work experience and professional training; legally qualified judges should possess the qualifications required for judicial offices in a Contracting Member Statebe national judges; technically qualified judges should have a university degree and expertise in a field of technology as well as knowledge of civil and civil procedural law;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – point ii
Paragraph 11 – point ii
(ii) the proceedings before the Court, consisting of a written, interim and oral procedure, should be dealt with by the Court in a flexible mannerall incorporate the appropriate elements of flexibility, taking into account the objectives of speed and efficiency of proceedings;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – point iii
Paragraph 11 – point iii
(iii) the language of proceedings before any local or regional division should be the official language of the Contracting Member State hosting the division or the official language designated by the Contracting Member States sharing a regional division; the parties should be free to chose the language in which the patent was granted as the language of proceedings subject to the approval of the competent division; the language of proceedings before the central division should be the language in which the patent concerned was granted; the language of proceedings before the Court of Appeal should be the language of proceedings before the Court of First Instance; at the duly justified request of one of the parties in the main proceedings, and after hearing the other parties, the court may decide that the language of proceedings shall be English; within a reasonable period of time, the language of the proceedings should always be English; . es
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point i
Paragraph 12 – point i
(i) the Court should have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of European patents with unitary effect and European patents designating one or more Contracting Member States; this will necessitate the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 44/20011;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point ii
Paragraph 12 – point ii
(ii) the plaintiff should bring the action 1 OJ L 307, 24.11.2001, p. 28 before the local division hosted by a Contracting Member State where the infringement has occurred or may occur, or where the defendant is domiciled or established, or to the regional division in which this Contracting Member State participates; if the Contracting Member State concerned does not host a local division and does not participate in a regional division, the plaintiff shall bring the action before the central division; the parties should be free to agree before which division of the Court of First Instance (local, regional or central) an action may be brought;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point iii
Paragraph 12 – point iii
(iii) in case of a counterclaim for revocation, the local or regional division should have the discretion to proceed with the infringement proceeding independently of whether the division proceeds as well with the counterclaim or whether it refers the counterclaim to the central divisionand shall also take cognizance of the counterclaim;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point vi
Paragraph 12 – point vi
(vi) the relationship between the Agreement and Regulation (EC) No 44/20011 should be clarified in the Agreement*; it should be borne in mind that owing to the primacy of EU law and since the EU has sole competence for such matters, all these rules must be introduced by way of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is of the opinion that the Court should base its decisions on Union law in all the applicable fields, the Agreement, the European Patent Convention (EPC) and national law having been adopted in accordance with the EPC, provisions of international agreements applicable to patents and binding on all the Contracting Member States and national law of the Contracting Member States in the light of Union law to be implemented; 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I), and that for all matters for which the Member States are competent, this list should be clarified and applicability criteria established in order to ensure the legal certainty and predictability of the actions of the courts; Or. es