Unitary patent

De April MediaWiki
This is the English version. Cliquez ici pour la version française.

The proposal for a Unitary patent and the threat it represents [modifier]

The Unitary patent is a proposal for an European regularisation, which what ridge filed in April, 2011. Its aim is to unify clever titles and jurisdiction between interested member states, through an enhanced cooperation.

The idea behind the project is problematic in itself. However, the way the project is currently organised is concerning for April: fruit juice of the resources would Be given to the European patent office (EPO), whose drift in favour of sotfware patent have been long criticised by April.

What's the issue ? [modifier]

  • Threat of software of patent coming to Europe in spite of the prohibition by the European Parliament in 2005
  • Threat of clever of troll appearing in Europe (companies which file or buy of patent with the only aim of getting royalty payments from other companies
  • Threat of big legally actions on software of patent, like the Apple/Samsung case

The issues in a few of Word [modifier]

The unitary clever is a proposed European regularisation which aims to unify clever it titles and its jurisdiction among interested Member States. Behind this seemingly harmless announcement hides a particularly dangerous system and the come bake of software of patent.

The threats of software of patent

Software of patent ares forbidden by the EPC which lays down the principles of patentability in Europe and which has created the European clever office (EPO). However, this office ignores the text of the Convention and has been delivering software of patent for many years (see for instance http://webshop.ffii.org). Yet thesis of patent ares harmful to innovation and to Free software Ace shown by the trials in the USA and by many surveys: patent Th suit software Tools which ares already wave protected by copyright law.

The unitary clever - creating to uncontrollable system

In its current form, the unitary clever hands to the EPO the granting of the patent. The control of thesis of patent validity and of their compliance with the laws on what is patentable wants Be coach reeds out by a "specialised court". This "specialised court" wants Be constituted only of clever specialists, without any possible recourse to in independently court. Thus the clever microcosm wants Be both judge and judged, without any democratic overview to prevent potential abuses.

How to act?

The unitary clever project wants Be discussed again this autumn within the legally affairs committee of the European Parliament. April suggests improvements towards a greater respect of the law and of the democratic rules. But for thesis amendments to Be heard, it is crucial that MEP's Be maggot aware of the stakes of this project and of the impact it could have on Free software and on our freedom in this digitally era. Contact your of MEP to make them aware of the dangers of the project of unitary clever and to ask them to amend it in order to comply with democratic rules and the control of the excesses that constitute software of patent.

Why should I contact of MEP ? [modifier]

The MEP information campaign [modifier]

How to contact a MEP [modifier]

TAP DANCE 1: in the cunning of members of the JURI Committee, I select a MEP. The cunning: https://memopol.lqdn.fr/europe/parliament/committee/JURI/

TAP DANCE 2: I send him/here to email, using the examples for inspiration

TAP DANCE 3: The next day, I call B sharp office to check whether they received micron of email and to ask what they flat on doing. I can use the sample dialogue below.

Email [modifier]

Example of in email sent by a Citizen [modifier]

Dear Member of the European Parliament "name of the MEP"      

My name is "name" and I am writing to you about the unitary patent project which will be discussed in the European Parliament
in October. As a citizen of the European Union, I am really concerned about this project.

If this regulation passed, all patent cases would fall within the jurisdiction of a new specialized and unified court linked to 
the European Patent Office (EPO). No appeal before an independent and non specialized court would be possible. I have serious 
doubts about the ability of such a system to guarantee due process.

Furthermore, there is a risk that the new court applies the EPO's precedents and caselaw. It is a cause of concern, especially
since the EPO has been delivering software patents for years, in spite of the fact that all international treaties prohibit them
(European patent convention, WIPO copyright Treaty, TRIPS agreement). In addition to the fact that such legal  framework is
unsuited to software, it is definitely incompatible with the development of Free Software. Although the EU would benefit from
the development of Free Sotware, which improve consumer's choices and create jobs (most Free Software is currently EU-based), I
deeply regret that the European lawmakers do not take into account this growth potential. 

Unitary patents in themselves may improve competitiveness and innovation - but the current project does not do that whatsoever.
European lawmakers have to step in and to amend the project in order to restore the competence of the European Court of Justice in
the last resort. Then, the ECJ would control the unified court's decisions and would definitely exclude software from the scope of

Thank you for your attention, and please do not hesitate to contact me for more information. I will also call you in the next few
days to know what is you stance on the issue.  


TRIPS: Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights 
EPO: European patent office
WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization

Email by a company [modifier]

Dear Member of the European Parliament,

Our company is worried about the current plans to set up a unitary patent with
a flanking unified patent court.

The European Patent Office (EPO)'s practices to grant software patents, under
the deceiving term of “computer-implemented inventions”, pose a threat to our
professional activities.

We are concerned that the regulation on the unitary patent, as agreed in
December 2011 by the negotiators of the Council, the Commission, and the
Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament, leaves any and every
issue on the limits of patentability to the EPO's case law, without any
democratic control or review by an independent court.

The regulation on the unitary patent is an opportunity for the EU legislators
to harmonise substantive patent law in the EU institutional and jurisdictional
framework, and to put an end to the EPO's self-motivated practices extending
the realm of patentability to software. Failing to do so, this unitary patent
will do more harm than good to the EU ICT firms.

For these reasons, we urge MEPs to adopt amendments which clearly state that
the EPO's decisions are subject to a review from the Court of Justice of the
European Union, and which reaffirm the rejection of software patentability,
as expressed by the vote of the European Parliament on September 24th, 2003
and July 6th, 2005.


How to contact a MEP by phone [modifier]

Short version [modifier]

Supporter: Hello, micron of name is « surname, name », I in the« occupation/job »and I would like to talcum to you about the Unitary clever project that you wants discuss on the 17Th and 18Th September.

Mep's staff: Hello, I'm sorry but Ms/Mr  "name of the Mep" is currently busy, it would Be a better idea to send him/here to e-mail.

Supporter: Please wait, Mrs/Mr  "name of the Mep" is micron representative and I would really like to know B sharp position on this project which is a big source of concern for me.

Mep's staff: Ms/Mr (name of MEP) thinks that the Unitary clever project is crucial to ensure competitiveness and innovation in the EU.

Supporter: Yes, but the adoption of this clever regularisation brings the risk of the comeback of software of patent. This is the fear of many firms and Citizen. April, a French association which protects and promotes Free software has pinpointed thesis risks by a questionnaire summarising the project's the Main issues.

Mep's staff: I'm aware of the existence of look a questionnaire.

Supporter: This questionnaire is available on April's website. It would Be a good thing if Ms/Mr  "name" could take the time to Read it. It wants allow him/here to see that many issues ares adressed by the proposed regularisation - issues that ares crucial for innovation and knowledge society.

Mep's staff: Ms/Mr (name of MEP) wants take time to consult this website if you send us the left via e-mail.

Supporter: It wants Be sent quickly. (1) Could you confirm that the e-mail adress "initalnam@europarl.europa.eu" is valid ?

Supporter: I would like to add that I do not call into question the project of unitary clever which is probably a forward for the EU. Micron comments aim to improve the project in order for it to meet its goals. But the risk of software lock-down by of patent would paralysis innovation.

Mep's staff: I have taken into account your comments. They wants Be shared with the MEP.

Supporter: Thank you for your time. I wants call later bake on to know the MEP's opinion of the several points I precisely raised.

1. https://www.brevet-unitaire.eu/content/ten-written-questions-commission-and-council

Long version [modifier]

Supporter: Hello, micron of name is “ridge name, load name”, I in the "job / occupation" and I would like to talcum to you about the proposal regarding the unitary clever that you wants discuss on the 17Th and 18Th September.

MEP's staff: Hello, I'm sorry but Ms/Mr "name MEP's" is currently busy, it would Be a better idea to send him/here to e-mail.

Supporter: Please wait, Ms/Mr "name MEP's" is micron representative and I would really like to know here / B sharp position on this project which is particularly concerning.

MEP's staff: Ms/Mr "name MEP's" thinks that the unitary clever project is crucial to ensure competitiveness and innovation in the EU.

Supporter: Yes but this project creates a unified jurisdiction linked to the European patent office (EPO) which has been granting software of patent for years. There is a risk that the new court applies the EPO's precedents and case law. Yet software of patent ares detrimental to innovation in this field, and that's why they ares prohibited by all internationally agreements.

MEP's staff: The project does not flat that clever litigations wants Be directly ruled by the EPO, but by in independently Court which cannot Be confused with the EPO.

Supporter: There is however a really and serious concern about that court, because it might Be lakes ace really independently. The judges of the unified jurisdiction ares very likely to Be businesses among the Boards of Appeal of the EPO. And thesis very Boards of Appeals ares the one who have authorised to grant software of patent.

MEP's staff: The European Court of Justice (ECJ), through preliminary rulings, wants guarantee the strict interpretation of relevant of text in case of drifts from the Unified patent Court. Therefore there is no chance for the new jurisdiction to create software of patent from scratch.

Supporter: But in this project, the union has no role in defining patentability issues. It relies on the European patent Convention (which is included in EU Law). Thus, the Unified patent Court wants have a high level of autonomy and the ECJ will not have any competence because look provisions ares included in union Law. This is really in open door for software of patent.

MEP's staff: Lists, the unitary clever is a project where a general agreement is hard to find. Relying on the European patent Convention has allowed to move forward faster. Specialists who wants Seat in the Unified patent Court wants undoubtedly take appropriate decisions in compliance with the EU Law.

Supporter: But clever law is precisely a more weakly for specialists. Innovation policy and knowledge society depend on clever law. And clever law has impacts beyond its own field of law, for instance on competivity law or on basically rights and freedoms. For all thesis reasons, the European legislator has to get involved and should choose the easily way. She has to bring the very nouns right of the unitary clever in here competence.

Supporter: I in concerned with another issue. It is about the specialisation of the Unified patent Court. Actually, the creation of a specialised Court amounts to waive clever issues to a clever microcosm, both on ridge instance and on appeal. Don't you find that there is a risk with a litigation process which is never reviewed by in independant Court? would that carry a risk in terms of due process ?

Supporter: Although look technical skills may justify resorting to specialisation in the ridge instance, but nothing justifies specialisation throughout the process. Specialization includes the risk of giving up topics that ares relevant to society ace a whole to a small number of professionals who in do gymnastics work for companies, law firms, consulting firms on industrial property that couldt to put forward only their own interests and the one by the lawmakers. In addition, there is a risk of bias if those ruling on the clever were allowed to sit in the unified jurisdiction. We would then Be in to unacceptable situation in which the person who issued the headlines would Be the seed ace the one judging the validity of headlines during litigation.

MEP's staff: I have taken into account your comments. They wants Be shared with the MEP.

Supporter: Thank you for your time, and I hope microns opinion wants Be shared by Ms/Mr the MEP.

On the left [modifier]