Presentation Outline
- The global patent industry
- The national patent offices
- The European Patent Office
- Independent patent experts and attornies
- IP lawyers for major corporations
- Patent-holding specialist firms (trolls)
- A for-profit industry
- A largely unregulated monopoly
- No competition in patent examination
- EPO fees several times higher than national fees
- Patent industry lobbies in Brussels, Munich, etc.
- The software patent directive 'failure'
- June 2005: FFII helps Parliament beat swpat directive
- Patent industry still traumatised
- Looking for new routes to software patents
- Community patent
- Harmonisation via TRIPS
- Harmonisation via EPC/EPC2000
- 'Problems' of current patent system
- EU not compatible with old EPC system
- EPO practice does not match national practice
- No cheap and reliable European patent
- Standard complaints about 'innovation gap'
- While EU IT industry escapes worst of US storm
- Introducing EPLA
- Draft proposal from EPO - a new multiparty treaty
- Creates new organisation: European Patent Judiciary
- Creates new European patent court
- Run by EPC representatives = patent industry
- EPLA court will enforce EPO patent policy
- The US CAFC experiment
- Since 1982, one US patent court system has:
- Lowered the threshold standard of patentability
- Encouraged extortionate demands and settlements
- Eliminated virtually all limits on patentable subject matter
- Given patents an unjustifiably high presumption of validity
- The CACF monopoly has been bad for the patent system
- Since 1982, one US patent court system has:
- EPLA is a worse monopoly than CAFC
- No legislative oversight
- No judicial oversight
- No independent judiciary
- Wholly specialized on patents
- EPLA Road Map
- EPC is changed to allow EU to join
- EU joins EPC and/or EPLA as signatory
- Subset of EPC states move ahead via 'Closer co-operation'
- ECJ would be called on to interpret EPC
- ECJ must abide to EPC Implementing Regulations (IR)
- EPO Admin Council - the patent industry - can change IR
- From December 2007, Admin Council can amend Article 52
- Impact of EPLA
- Circumvents E.P. decision on software patents
- Creates a new court system under control of patent industry
- Financed by patent litigation
- Introduce software patents to EU states
- Impose EPO TBA interpretation via judges, or
- Force ECJ to adopt EPO's practice, or
- Modify EPC Article 52 to remove restrictions
- Other effects of EPLA
- Remove national courts' regulation of patent industry
- Consolidate patent industry control over patent system
- Increase cost of defending against patent litigation
- Make it easier for large firms to claim patents
- Create court system run by the patent industry
- Pro-EPLA propaganda
- Europe is falling behind in economic performance
- Europe needs to be more innovative
- Innovation depends on a strong intellectual property regime
- This means we need stronger and more reliable patent system
- Litigation in Europe's current patent system is too expensive
- The Community Patent is the ultimate solution
- EPLA plus the London Protocol are a good interim solution
- Debunking the propaganda
- The US is falling behind in economic performance
- Innovation depends on taxation, market size & accessibility, etc.
- Intellectual property is many things, not just patents
- Main problem with patents is not litigation, but bad patents
- EPLA would block, not promote, an EU patent system
- Cost of pro-EPLA campaign
- Large efforts in 2006 by EPO and Commission
- Estimated cost: 100m-250m Euro
- Spent on:
- Documentary & legal support
- Media events
- Public relations
- Public opinion 'research'
- Direct lobbying
- The EP Organisation
- Set-up in 1997 by signing of EPC
- 31 member states incl. Romania, Switzerland and Turkey
- Run by EP Office and Administrative Council
- A treaty organisation like UN or World Postal Union
- Diplomatic immunity, tax-free status
- Run by officials from national patent offices
- FFII actions on EPLA
- epla.ffii.org microsite
- Definition of alternatives to EPLA