2011/2176(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes as indispensable to guaranteeing unitary patent protection within the European Union, the participating Member States' efforts to establish a Unified Patent Litigation Court by means of an international agreement; recalls that the unitary patent system can only be effective through a functioning patent litigation system; nevertheless, the participating Member States shall ensure effective legal protection before a national court against any administrative decision of the European Patent Office;

Amendment 10 #

Bendt BENDTSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that, to ensure the high quality of court decisions, it will be essential for judges to have the necessary qualifications and receive continuous training; but points out that judges should not provide counselling on a case already brought to court;

Amendment 11 #

Silvia-Adriana ȚICĂU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Not~~Stresses that, to ensure the high quality of court decisions, it will be essential for judges to have the necessary qualifications and receive continuous training, and calls on the Member States and the Commission to take appropriate measures;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. States that adopting English as the only working language related to patent legal protection shall reduce costs;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the establishment of a mediation and arbitration centre within the framework of the agreement~~, which is a further step towards reducing the costs of litigatio~~ and stresses that one of its main aims must be to reduce and keep litigation costs down for the parties involved;

Amendment 14 #

Ioannis A. TSOUKALAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the establishment of a mediation and arbitration centre within the framework of the agreement, which is a further step towards reducing red tape and the costs of litigation for the parties involved;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises th~~e need for preferential treatment for~~at a simple and well- functioning Unified Patent Litigation system will be of particular benefit to SMEs and young innovative companies,; in ~~the form of a differentiated and simpli~~vites the Member States to examine the possibility for introducing differentiated fees for micro and small enterprises as defined ~~cost and procedural structure~~in the Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC, whilst fully respecting equality before the law;

Amendment 16 #

Philippe LAMBERTS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises the need for preferential treatment for smaller actors, in particular researchers, SMEs and ~~young~~ innovative companies, in the form of a differentiated and simplified cost and procedural structure;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses the need for legal certainty and therefore believes that jurisdiction should fall to the local or regional division hosted by the Contracting Member State where the defendant is domiciled;

Amendment 18 #

Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Bendt BENDTSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls on the European Commission for an assessment of the financial effects of United Patent Litigation;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes as indispensable to guaranteeing unitary patent protection within the European Union, the participating Member States' efforts to establish a Unified Patent Litigation Court by means of an international agreement; recalls that the unitary patent system can only be effective through a functioning patent litigation system, which guarantees timely consideration of a claim;

Amendment 3 #

Ioannis A. TSOUKALAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that the creation of the unified patent litigation system will play an important role in strengthening legal certainty and efficient, quick, low-cost, high quality legal protection, further boosting research and innovation in Europe and increasing the competitiveness of European industry, particularly with regard to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that the creation of the unified patent litigation system, reducing legal costs and shortening time to resolution of disputes, will play an important role in strengthening legal certainty, further boosting innovation in ~~Europe~~the EU and increasing the competitiveness of European industry, particularly with regard to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);

Amendment 5 #

Philippe LAMBERTS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that the creation of the unified patent litigation system ~~will~~could play an important role in strengthening legal certainty, further boosting innovation in Europe and increasing the competitiveness of European industry, particularly with regard to researchers and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);

Amendment 6 #

Philippe LAMBERTS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Suggests that Members of boards of appeal of a national patent office or of the EPO shall not be eligible to serve as a judge of the court until expiry of a 6- months period after the termination of their previous function so as to guarantee their neutrality;

Amendment 7 #

Alajos MÉSZÁROS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Underlines that the multinational composition of the local and regional divisions of the Court of First Instance shall be guaranteed within a reasonable time frame;

Amendment 8 #

Ioannis A. TSOUKALAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that, to ensure the high quality of court decisions, it will be essential for judges to have the necessary qualifications ~~and receive continuous training~~, expertise and specialisation, receive continuous training as well as have access to expert assistance and technical advisors, non-excluding the assistance of experts from the EU's Agencies and the JRC;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that, to ensure the high quality of court decisions, it will be essential for judges to have the necessary qualifications and receive continuous training; in this regard also highlights the importance of having technical judges both in the central courts and the local/regional divisions;

source: PE-473.870

2011/10/27 JURI 25 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Calls for the establishment of the Unified Patent Litigation System, as a fragmented market for patents and disparities in law enforcement hampers innovation and progress in the internal market, complicate the use of the patent system, are costly and prevent the effective protection of patent rights, particularly those of SMEs;

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
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 11 #

Dimitar STOYANOV, Slavi BINEV

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – point ii

(ii) a decentralised first instance should consist, in addition to a central division, also of local and regional divisions; there should be at least one local division in each Contracting Member State;

Amendment 12 #

Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

Motion for a resolution
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~~as regards their composition ~~must be adapted to the existing court structures; proposes, therefore, that the composition of the local divisions should become multinational after~~that account should be taken of the existing court structures, while bearing in mind that the overriding objective is to ensure that the new court is genuinely unified; proposes, therefore, that the composition of the local divisions should become multinational as soon as possible but that reasoned exceptions to this general principle may be made after approval from the Administrative Committee during a transitional period of no more than 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 preparation for the judges;

Amendment 13 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~judges~~system;

Amendment 14 #

Sajjad KARIM

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~fiv~~three 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 ~~fiv~~three years should be used for intensive training and preparation for the judges;

Amendment 15 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Motion for a resolution
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 State~~be 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 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – point ii

(ii) the proceedings before the Court, consisting of a written, interim and oral procedure, sh~~ould be dealt with by the Court in a flexible manner~~all incorporate the appropriate elements of flexibility, taking into account the objectives of speed and efficiency of proceedings;

Amendment 17 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Motion for a resolution
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 18 #

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – point iii

(iii) the language of proceedings before any local or regional division should be ~~the~~ an official or co-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 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;

Amendment 19 #

Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – point v

(v) the parties should be represented only by lawyers authorised to practise before a court of a Contracting Member State~~; the representatives of the parties might be assisted by patent attorneys who should be allow~~ and/or by European Patent lawyers who are entitled to sappea~~k at hearings before the Court~~r before the European Patent Office;

Amendment 2 #

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Encourages Member States to conclude the negotiations and to ratify the agreement without undue delays; calls upon Spain and Italy to join in the enhanced cooperation procedure;

Amendment 20 #

Dimitar STOYANOV, Slavi BINEV

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – point v

(v) the parties should be represented only by lawyers authorised to practise before a court ~~of a~~in any of the Contracting Member States; the representatives of the parties might be assisted by patent attorneys who should be allowed to speak at hearings before the Court;

Amendment 21 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Motion for a resolution
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 division~~and shall also take cognizance of the counterclaim;

Amendment 24 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Motion for a resolution
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

Amendment 3 #

Eva LICHTENBERGER, Christian ENGSTRÖM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Insists that the Court of Justice, as guardian of Union law, must ensure uniformity of the Union legal order and the primacy of European law in this context; urges, therefore, that steps be taken to verify whether an international agreement to which the Union is not a party can confer on the Court of Justice an obligation to hear questions referred for a preliminary ruling, as stated in the draft Agreement on the Unified Patent Court;

Amendment 4 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL

Motion for a resolution
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 5 #

Sari ESSAYAH

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses the need for a cost-efficient litigation system which is financed in such a way as to secure access to justice for all patent holders, and also for small and medium-sized enterprises;

Amendment 6 #

Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that the legal costs must not be so high that they risk hindering access to justice, particularly for SMEs, individuals and not-for-profit organisations;

Amendment 7 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 – point ii

(ii) the Agreement should come into force when a ~~minimum of nin~~ll 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 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Motion for a resolution
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 TFEU~~in 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 9 #

Motion for a resolution
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 Cour~~ the Court would become, in the area in which it sha~~ll cooperate with the Court of Justice by applying Article 267 TFEU~~s exclusive powers, the sole judicial interlocutor of the Court of Justice by way of a preliminary referral procedure concerning the interpretation and application of Union law, and would be responsible, in the exercise of that power, for guaranteeing the full application of Union law and the judicial protection of the rights conferred on citizens by that law;

source: PE-475.785

2011/11/07 AFCO 8 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Agrees that effective unitary patent protection in Europe would contribute to the objective of growth through innovation and would thus help European business, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, to cut costs, effectively enforce patent rights and face the economic crisis and global competition;

Amendment 2 #

Enrique GUERRERO SALOM

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

10. Agrees that effective unitary patent protection in Europe would contribute to the objective of growth through innovation and would thus help European business, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, to face the economic crisis and global competition; takes the view that the underlying law, language arrangements and legal aspects of the unitary patent protection system are indissolubly linked;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Acknowledges that effective unitary patent protection can only be ensured through a properly functioning patent litigation system; believes that such a system must respect the primacy of Union law; points out that effective use should be made of existing national patent litigation systems when setting up a unitary system for the settlement of patent disputes;

Amendment 4 #

Marietta GIANNAKOU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Acknowledges that effective unitary patent protection can only be ensured through a properly functioning specialised patent litigation system; believes that such a system must respect the primacy of Union law;

Amendment 5 #