Conference On Industrial Property Rights In The Internal Market

Schedule

Thursday 16 October 2008
Strasbourg
Simultaneous interpretation will be provided in English and French

  • 9:00-9:45 Welcome - Registration
  • 10:00-10:30
    • Keynote by Mr. Charlie McCreevy, Internal Market and Services Commissioner
    • Welcome by Christine Lagarde, French Minister, Ministry for Economy, Industry and Employment
    • Introduction by Mr. Manuel Desantes, Vice President of the European Patent Office
  • 11:00-12:30 Panel 1: European Patent Jurisdiction: Main features: This panel will explore the main features of a new single European Union patent litigation system for both the European and future Community patents.
    • Mr. Benoît Battistelli, Director general, French National Institute for Industrial Property and Vice-Chairman of the board of the European Patent Office (moderator)
    • Mrs. Alice Pezard, Advisor, French Supreme Court
    • Mr. Robin Jacob, Judge, High Court of Justice
    • Mr. Willem A. Hoyng, President, European Patent Lawyers Association
    • Mr. Jochen Pagenberg, Lawyer, Bardehle & Pagenberg
    • Mr. Tim Frain, Director IPR, Regulatory Affairs, Nokia Corporation
    • Mr. Eurico Marques Dos Reis, Judge, Court of Appeal of Lisboa
    • Mr. Axel Casalonga, IP Counsel, Bureau .A. Casalonga - Josse
  • 12:30-13:00 Cocktail
  • 13:00-14:30 Lunch
  • 14:30-16:00 Panel 2: European Patent Jurisdiction: Proceedings & Rules of Procedure : This panel will elaborate on how the above European Union patent litigation system will proceed and the rules of procedure this new jurisdiction will apply.
    • Mrs. Sharon Bowles, Member of the European Parliament (tbc) (moderator)
    • Mrs. Pascale Fombeur, Director for Civil Affairs, French Ministry of Justice
    • Mr. Klaus Grabinski, Presiding Judge, District Court of Düsseldorf
    • Mr. Thierry Sueur, Vice President, Intellectual Property and European & International Affairs of Air Liquide
    • Mr. David Rosenberg, Vice President, Corporate Intellectual Property Policy, GlaxoSmithKline
    • Mr. Örjan Grunden, Lawyer, Gozzo Advokater HB
    • Mr. Jorge Grau, Lawyer, Grau & Angulo
    • Mr. Bernhard Fischer, Chair of the EICTA IPR group, SAP AG
  • 16:00-16:30 Coffee break
  • 16:30-18:00 Panel 3: Community Patent: A Common Patent for Europe : This panel will focus on outstanding issues regarding the Community patent and on achieving a broad agreement that will be in the interest of users of the patent system, in particular SMEs, to make the Community patent affordable.
    • Mrs. Erika Mann, Member of the European Parliament (tbc) (moderator)
    • Mr. Antonio Campinos, President, Portuguese Patent and Trademark Office
    • Mr. Bertram Huber, Senior Vice President, Robert Bosch GmbH, Germany
    • Mr. Vincent Tilman, Advisor European Affairs, Eurochambres
    • Mr. Dominique Broggio, Legal Advisor for Economic Affairs, CGPME
    • Mr. Christian Brevard, President, Institut Européen Entreprise et Propriété Intellectuelle (IEEPI)
    • Mr. Holger Kunze, Director, VDMA
    • Mr. Fernando Guerrero, CEO, Founder and Mentor, Solid Quality Mentors (tbc)
  • 18:00 Closing
    • Mrs. Margot Fröhlinger, Director, European Commission
    • Mr. Alain Pompidou, Senior Advisor, Centre National de Recherche Scientifique
  • 20:00 Dinner Gala

Friday 17 October 2008

  • 8:15-9:30 Press launch of ICC/BASCAP IP Guidelines for Business
    • Launch Event: Breakfast meeting
  • 9:30-11:00 Panel 4: Enforcement: Economic Stakes and Implications for Competitiveness and Innovation : This panel will explore the economic dimension of counterfeiting and piracy and give a better understanding of this phenomenon which is, contrary to public perception, not limited to luxury goods but affects all sectors of the economy.
    • Mrs. Edith Herczog, Member of the European Parliament (tbc) (moderator)
    • Mr. Alexandre Csmal, Legal Adviser, Assemblée des Chambres Françaises de Commerce et d'Industrie (ACFCI)
    • Mr. Marcos Bonturi, Head of the Structural Policy Division of the Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD
    • Mr. Richard Heath, Vice-President, Legal - Global Anti-Counterfeiting Counsel, Unilever and President Elect – International Trademark Association
    • Mr. Marc-Antoine Jamet, President, Union des Fabricants (UNIFAB) (tbc)
    • Mrs. Doris Möller, Secretary General, APM-Germany
    • Mrs. Angelika Pohlenz, Secretary General, International Chamber of Commerce Germany
    • Mr. Luc Rousseau, Director, General Directorate for Enterprise, French Ministry of Economy, Finance and Employment (tbc)
  • 11:15-11:30 Coffee break
  • 11:30-13:00 Panel 5: Enforcement: Involvements for Security & Health of Citizens : This panel will elaborate on the dangers of counterfeiting for health and safety the public such as the counterfeiting of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, electronic chips, spare parts for cars etc.
    • Mrs. Angelika Niebler, Member of the European Parliament (tbc) (moderator)
    • Mrs Catherine Trautmann, Member of the European Parliament (tbc)
    • Mr. Michael Negel, CEO Global Sourcing AG (tbc)
    • Mrs. Monique Goyens, Director-General, BEUC
    • Mr. Larry Malloy, Vice-President, Johnson & Johnson
    • Mr. Alvydas Stancikas, Head of Unit, European Commission
    • Mr. Allen N. Dixon, Managing Director, International Intellectual Property and Technology Consulting (IIPTC)
    • Mr. Felix Addor, Director, Legal and International Affairs Division, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (tbc)
  • 13:00-14:30 Lunch
  • 14:30-16:30 Panel 6: Enforcement : Transborder Cooperation/ Public-Private Partnership : This panel will highlight the need to control better international trade flows including by means of new technologies which allow tracking and tracing of products or authentication of original goods.
    • Mrs. Janelly Fourtou, Member of the European Parliament (moderator)
    • Mrs. Biserka Strel, Director, Slovenian Intellectual Property Office
    • Mrs. Maria Ludovica Agro, Director, Italian Patent and Trademark Office
    • Mr. Gusztav Bienerth, President, American Chamber of Commerce, Hungary (tbc)
    • Mr. Alexandru Faciu, Chief Prosecutor of the Office for International Relations and Programs, High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania (tbc)
    • Mrs. Beate Lalk-Menzel, Senior IP counsel, Daimler AG and representative of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) BASCAP Initiative, Germany (tbc)
    • Mr. Jérôme Fournel, General Manager of French Customs (tbc)
    • Mr. Luis Valles, Major of the Spanish Guardia Civil
  • 16:30 Closing
    • Mr. Benoît Battistelli, Director general, INPI
    • Mr. Thierry Stoll, Deputy Director general, European Commission
    • 17:00 Closing Cocktail

Note: Each Panel consists of an introductory statement by the moderating Members of the European Parliament setting the scene, followed by presentations by the panellists and a moderated Q&A session involving the audience.

Audio recordings

http://media.ffii.org/FrenchPres081016/

Transcripts

00:00:00: Benoît Battistelli (moderator)

Mesdames et Messieurs, cette conférence représente un moment important de la présidence française dans le domaine de la propriété industrielle. Et je souhaite remercier les responsables du Parlement européen d'avoir bien voulu nous acceuillir dans cette enceinte. Cette conférence est en effet la première conférence de cette ampleur depuis celle qui a été organisée à Ustia (?) en octobre 2003 conjointement par la présidence italienne et par la Commission. Comme vous le savez, la propriété industrielle constitue pour l'ensemble de nos pays l'un des enjeux fondamentaux de l'Union européenne pour la connaissance, la recherche et … Au cours de ces deux journées, cette conférence traitera des principaux sujets actuellement en débat au sein de l'Union européenne : la création d'un système monétaire européen intégré pour le contenieux des brevets, la création d'un brevet communautaire, la politique de lutte menée contre la contrefaçon. Je souhaiterais que ces trois sujets majeurs adresser des remerciements très chaleureux au commissaire McCreevy. … L'union européenne enregistre depuis maintenant deux ans des progrès considérables sur ces sujets. Les progrès sont notamment dûs à … et à l'engagement de la Commission européenne dans le domaine de la propriété industrielle, dans sa volonté de mieux protéger et faire appliquer les droits de propriété industrielle en Europe. Je souhaite saluer ici l'engagement personnel du Commissaire McCreevy sur ces sujets. Comme vous le savez, la Commission européenne a lancé en juillet 2006 une large consultation de l'ensemble des professionneles concernés et des Etats membres. Vous avez été nombreux ici présents à y répondre. Cette consultation s'est traduite par … l'adoption de deux communications majeures qui ont permis en coopération avec les Etats membres de structuer la politique de l'Union européenne dans le domaine de la propriété industrielle. La Communication du … 2008 intitulé "amélioration du système de brevets en Europe" et la Comunication du 16 juillet 2008 intitutlée "Les stratégies dans le domaine des droits de propriété industrielle en Europe". Ces communications ont permis de tracer un cadre global pour la propriété industrielle au sein du marché intérieur. Elles ont également permis la continuation des travaux pour la … des brevets, sur le brevet communautaire, … … de s'adapter aux attentes des utilisateurs de manière à favoriser la compétitivité des entreprises et la croissance de notre économie. Elles ont également engagé réflexions sur une politique de l'Union européenne en matière de lutte contre la contrefaçon, associant les meilleures pratiques des Etats membres. On se rend compte de la dimension aujourd'hui communautaire et mondiale du phénomène de la contrefaçon. Le parlement européen est évidemment un acteur essentiel du débat et je salue aujourd'hui la présence parmi nous de membres du Parlement européen engagé sur ces sujets. Mesdames et messieurs, la présidence allemande, … et … qui ont précédé la présidence française de l'Union européenne ont été marqués par un engagement et une dynamique qui ont permis, qui nous ont permis à tous de progresser considérablement. Avec le soutien de la Commission européenne, les discussions entre les Etats membres et au sein du groupe Brevets et … ont permis de mener le nécessaire travail technique … d'une … pour le contentieux des brevets et pour la création du brevet communautaire. Le travail technique est indispensable sur ces sujets difficiles, d'importance économique majeure afin que ce que nous construisons en Europe dans le domaine de la propriété industrielle réponde aux intérêts et aux attentes des utilisateurs, des opérateurs économiques. Mesdames et Messieurs, la présidence française de l'Union européenne entend se lancer dans cette dynamique et prolonger l… des présidences qui l'ont précédé. La volonté de la présidence française demeure d'instaurer l'élaboration des textes communautaires sur la juridiction et le brevet communautaire. Sur la contrefaçon, la présidence française souhaite donner une impulsion à l'Europe à l'adoption d'une résolution du Conseil … 25 septembre dernier relatif à l'agence européenne globale de lutte contre la contrefaçon. Cette résolution marque une nouvelle étape en offrant des propositions … concrètes et opérationnelles dans la lutte contre la contrefaçon. Ce plan européenne global permet en effet de développer des actions de sensibilisation et de communication notamment dans l'instauration d'une journée européenne contre la contrefaçon, invite à favoriser les accords de partenariat entre secteur public et secteur privé et à promouvoir la collaboration entre professionnels afin de lutter plus efficacement contre la contrefaçon. Le Conseil a également invité la Commission européenne à mettre en place un observatoire européen de la contrefaçon afin de disposer d'informations régulières et d'une analyse plus précise de l'ampleur du phénomène. … cet observatoire va pouvoir être mis en oeuvre très rapidement. Mesdames et Messieurs, la présidence française a tenu cette conférence sur la propriété industrielle dans le marché intérieur à la moitié de ce second semestre afin que l'ensemble des acteurs publics ou privés puissent avoir un échange approfondi sur l'état des travaux en cours au sein de l'Union européenne. Il est important pour nous que les débats relatifs à la propriété industrielle soient ouverts à la société civile et aux acteurs concernés. L'objet de cette conférence est donc de permettre un dialogue entre spécialistes, de discussion entre … …des travaux qui se déroulent actuellement au sein du Conseil. Cette conférence permet également, en tout cas nous l'espérons, de définir des … sujets de présentation commune, tracer des perspectives partagées par l'ensemble des acteurs ou la … des travaux en cours. Mesdames et Messieurs, l'Europe connaît actuellement une situation délicate dans le cadre d'une crise financière exceptionnelle. En regard de ce contexte, il semble qu'il n'a jamais été aussi impératif que l'Europe se dote, dans le domaine de la propriété industrielle, des instruments nécessaires à sa croissance, des instruments nécessaires pour assurer la vitalité de son économie et de son développement. Dans la réalisation de ces objectifs, la réalisation d'un système .. intégré pour les brevets, la création d'un brevet communautaire et la mise en oeuvre d'une politique globale de lutte contre la contrefaçon sont et demeurent essentiels. Mesdames et Messieurs, je vous souhaite une excellente conférence … des travaux fructueux et vous remercie de votre attention.

00:01:02: Keynote by Mr. Charlie McCreevy, Internal Market and Services Commissioner

Members of the European Parliament, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, It is with great pleasure that I welcome you on behalf of the European Commission to this conference on Industrial Property Rights in the Internal Market. In co-organising this two-day event with the French Presidency, we set out to bring together stakeholders, experts, members of the judiciary, and members of the European Parliament to share views and discuss issues which are crucial for European competitiveness. Innovation is a vital tool for maintaining competitiveness, growth and employment in the European Union. That is why the Commission has identified investing in knowledge and innovation as one of four key priorities in the 2008 to 2010 cycle in the renewed Lisbon strategy. However, when it comes to protecting innovations European companies are facing a considerable competitive disadvantage compared to companies in emerging economic powerhouses and those of our main trading partners. Recent figures show that a current European patent can be anything from four to ten times more expensive than a US patent, when processing and translation costs are taken into consideration. The cost depends on the number of Member States targeted. And when you look at the total cost with up to ten years of protection, European patents are nearly double to five times more expensive, compared to Japanese patents which are 50 % cheaper than US patents. To protect just one invention in more than one Member State, the excessively high translation and other transaction costs which applicants have to pay to an array of patent offices and patent agents, have to be reduced. With respect to patent litigation in the EU all available data shows that the existing system also involves prohibitive cost. The cost for an individual case in one Member State may range from €50,000 to a staggering one and a half million Euro at first instance, and from €40,000 to a million Euro at second instance. Needless to say, that with the risk of multiple patent law suits in different countries concerning the same patent issue, such a system is prone to abuse and does not provide access to justice for SMEs. Providing for an accessible and affordable patent system has become even more urgent as we face an economic meltdown arising from our current financial crisis. A reformed patent system will ensure that European SMEs who are at the cutting edge of technology, can protect their inventions without undue burdens in order to obtain the venture capital they need to realise the full potential from their innovations. What business needs is an efficient cost-effective patent system with high standards in the quality of patent examination. We need to put an end to the fragmentation of the market in patents and reduce unnecessary costs and red tape. I strongly believe we can only do this by creating a Community patent for the Single Market. What we also need is a specialist patent jurisdiction that will provide for trans-national or EU-wide decisions. With this, we can do away with cumbersome and costly litigation where the same patent is argued over in the national courts of our different Member States. This doesn't just cause headaches for Small and Medium size Enterprises, a recent multi-forum case involved the technology the European Central Bank uses to make our Euro banknotes! The German and Dutch courts upheld the patent owned by Document Security Systems, but the British and French tribunals revoked it – and we still don't know the results in other countries yet. So, we could say Europe's current patent litigation systems have put a cash crisis of another variety on the ECB's plate! We, in Europe, have been struggling for decades to deliver on this. And we continue to struggle. Our public consultation in 2006 reminded us what users want and need, and the urgent need for action. We responded with our April 2007 Patent Communication to re-launch the Council debate. Substantial progress has been made in the course of the Portuguese and the Slovenian Presidencies and the current French Presidency is continuing those efforts. A draft Agreement and Statute on a uniform patent jurisdiction is now on the table. This would deal with infringement and validity actions for both European patents and future Community patents. The proposed system would involve local or regional divisions hearing infringement cases, a central division dealing with direct actions challenging the validity of the patent, and a common appeal court for consistent jurisprudence. There would be a pool of judges to reinforce the local and regional divisions and an academy for patent justices. But we still have work to do. In particular, we still need to decide on the linkage with the European Court of Justice, the role of technical judges, and the rights of representation of patent agents and attorneys. There are also some financial issues. But we all need to be pragmatic to reach a compromise on these points. On the Community patent, the stumbling blocks are the linguistic and translation requirements, and the setting and distribution of annual fees to maintain the patent. Again, significant progress has been made since April 2007. We now have the new innovative approach of machine translations which would be provided by a central service for information purposes. Thanks to constant technological advances, it has become possible, at a reasonable cost, to produce technically-accurate machine translations. These are already being used by major patent offices. By extending these to all Community languages, applicants would no longer face the hassle involved in obtaining and paying for translations. This would save them hundreds of millions of Euros every year. And patent information could be available in all 23 official Community languages for European citizens. I am also optimistic that we can agree on appropriate fee levels that would be attractive for patent holders and help finance our patent offices. We need an agreement on both a unified patent litigation system and a Community patent, if we are to eradicate the long-known flaws of the existing European patenting landscape. What has been achieved with the creation of the Community trademark in 1994, and the Community design in 2002, can also be achieved in patents. The Community Patent will make it cheaper and easier to protect new inventions in all EU Member States. But we can't have this without a high-quality jurisdictional system for both the Community patent and the European patent. This package will remove a serious competitive handicap suffered by Europe's innovators and SMEs. It will also stimulate investment in research and development. Europe cannot afford to lag behind countries such as the United States, Japan, Korea, India and China, simply because we cannot fix translation issues or cannot agree upon a specialist court that has been demanded by patent users and industry. After decades of protracted discussions, where people have been safeguarding numerous self interests, the moment has now come for decision taking. Cherry-picking will no longer be possible. Either we make it or we break it. I am committed to achieving solutions that are supported by patent users, particularly SMEs. We need to try to avoid the features of the failed 2003 Common Political Approach that have been universally criticised by our stakeholders. And let me assure you, that the Commission will not support any compromise which is not endorsed by industry. We are not pushing for this reform simply for the beauty of having a Community patent. We are doing it to make life easier for European companies. Further progress with the patent reform agenda requires the acceptance of political realities and pragmatic solutions that will work in practice. The window of opportunity for a breakthrough is currently open. Now, what is needed most is the political will to reach a compromise. And once a political agreement is reached, the required legal instruments will already have been agreed. Clearly, reforming our systems is vital and I could hardly close this address without mentioning the continuing problem of counterfeiting and piracy. We must set common, tangible plans to help remedy what has become a highly corruptive and extremely destructive trend. A huge range of sectors are now being hit. More and more evidence exists of counterfeits appearing on the market which are directly endangering lives; from fake pharmaceuticals made from brick dust, to toothpastes tainted with chemicals. In August, the European Alliance for Access to Safe Medicines (EAASM) reported that 62% of medicines purchased online are now either fake or substandard, including drugs for serious conditions such as heart disease and mental health. Our own statistics verify the threat: 79 million counterfeit items were seized at our EU borders last year. This represents almost 10 times the amount seized three years ago. In cosmetics and personal care items for example, there has been an incredible 264% rise in the volume of seizures. The focus of our efforts in our Industrial Property Rights Strategy is to enhance enforcement by better information gathering, awareness-raising and improved cooperation networks at all levels. I am pleased to say that the Council strongly supports this approach and I would like to thank the French Presidency for working so diligently to help the adoption of the Resolution on a Comprehensive European Anti-counterfeiting and Anti-piracy Plan. On a practical level, if we are to make this enforcement strategy as effective as possible we need to underpin it with a stronger knowledge base. A European Anti-counterfeiting and Anti-piracy Observatory will be set up to help us collect data, analyze statistics, and propose new methodologies. It is my firm belief that industry is best placed to lead us in this. You have the expertise, knowledge and information that can boost our enforcement efforts. So I encourage you to share information and to work with us to deliver better ways to exchange this information and to enhance cooperation across the board. The general concept of the Observatory is now widely accepted and has the full backing of Member States, industry and the Parliament. We are currently laying the groundwork by developing concrete steps for its creation. Alongside this, we will focus on helping to build stronger Administrative cooperation. Mechanisms to exchange information between Member States have never been more essential. We are working to develop ways to provide a solid structure that will improve and promote more effective alliances between administrations and enforcement bodies in all Member States. What else can we do? In the EU we have some of the strongest legislation in the world on counterfeiting and piracy and we are still under pressure. That is why I am more convinced than ever that more legislation is not the solution. So the Commission will focus on non-legislative measures aimed at more effective collaboration. In this respect, I am extremely pleased that the International Chambers of Commerce, and the "Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy" initiative, will unveil new Intellectual Property Guidelines to help businesses to manage and protect their valuable property. So let me conclude by saying that I believe that intellectual property is one of Europe's greatest assets. It is a primary fuel for business and allows our consumers to benefit from living in the most inventive region in the world. The future for Europe is dependent on creating the conditions and support for top quality intellectual property. That is why we must continue to strive for an IPR system which is the most competitive in the world. Thank you very much.

00:00:00: Benoît Battistelli (moderator)

Merci Monsieur le Commissaire pour vos paroles et votre engagement personnel. Je sais en plus que vous avez un emploi du temps chargé. Vous êtes un homme…et nous sommes d'autant plus reconnaissants….blabla…. (invite les membres du panel à venir le rejoindre)

Bien. Maintenant que tous les membres du panel sont installés, je crois que je n'ai pas besoin de vous présenter eh les membres du panel qui sont tous très connus dans le domaine de la propriété industrielle et vous les connaissez. Je dois excuser l'absence de Madame Alice Pezard, conseiller à la Cour de cassation français. Elle a été malheureusement victime d'un incident de la circulation il y a quelques jours. Pas grave, je vous rassure, mais qui l'empêche de se déplacer pour quelque temps et elle m'a prié de bien vous transmettre ses excuses pour son absence. Nous lui souhaitons surtout un prompt rétablissement. Ce premier panel est donc consacré à la juridiction européenne compétente en matière de brevet et en particulier à ses principales caractéristiques, c'est-à-dire son architecture et les principes sur lesquels elle est construit et ses traits essentiels. En effet nous avons, comme prévu dans le programme, prévu une deuxième panel qui se tiendra en début d'après-midi et qui lui est consacré plus particulièrement aux questions, aux règles de procédures et à l'ensemble des questions de procédure. Donc, je demanderais aux membres du panel de bien vouloir se concentrer sur le sujet de ce matin, c'est-à-dire les principales caractéristiques du projet de juridiction de l'Union européenne et je vous demanderais dans la salle dans vos questions et dans vos réactions de bien vouloir aussi vous concentrer sur cet aspect là. Naturellement les deux sont liés mais pour nous permettre d'aller plus au fond dans l'analyse, je crois qu'il est plus efficace de distinguer donc le sujet sur le panel même et celui de cet après-midi. Nous pensons aussi que pour l'intérêt de la discussion, nous pouvons en résumé indiquer que je crois que nous partageons tous les mêmes objectifs, à savoir la nécessité pour compléter le système européen des brevets, système européen des brevets qui est de mon point de vue une réussite, est naturellement confronté à des défis qui ne sont pas propres à l'Europe. Des défis auxquels sont confrontés tous les systèmes de brevets au monde. Mais le système européen des brevets a la particularité qu'il est fondé d'un côté sur une procédure centralisé de délivrance et qu'il n'a pas de système intégré ou centralisé de résolution des conflits. Il y a donc là une faiblesse congénitale si je puis dire et nous sommes tous je crois d'accord pour indiquer que l'objectif est bien de combler cette lacune et de le faire de manière à assurer des juges, un système de contentieux efficace qui allie à la fois les objectifs de proximité et de compétence et qui donne aux usagers, et c'est bien ça l'objectif, et bien un niveau de sécurité juridique qui soit suffisant pour qu'ils puissent prendre en toute connaissance de cause leurs décisions en matière d'investissement et en matière de propriété industrielle. Si nous partageons tous ces objectifs, la difficulté est naturellement de savoir comment on arrive à les atteindre. Je … aussi que vous tous dans la salle êtes forcément au courant des travaux sur ce projet de juridiction européenne. Vous avez accès aux documents et donc il n'est pas nécessaire de les préciser. Nous allons plutôt essayer dans cette table ronde de nous concentrer sur un certain nombre de points de fond qui méritent d'être traités car ils constituent des éléments essentiels qui nous permettront de juger de l'efficacité du système. Nous partons de l'idée également que dans les juridictions il est question de créer, tant la juridiction sera compétente de validité des brevets et pour les problèmes de contrefaçon. … président de juridiction, compétence de … Alors, il se pose un certain nombre de questions et je voudrais commencer peut-être de m'adresser à l'ordre … Robin Jacob, en lui demandant ce qu'il pense de ce projet de création d'un pool de juges. Juges qui constitueraient donc sur la base de propositions émanant d'un comité de sélection, qui seraient donc constitués en pool. Et comment vous voyez du point de vue de la gestion de ce pool de magistrats et juges et bien leur affectation entre les divisions décentralisées de division de première instance et la division centrale, comment voyez-vous fonctionner cela de manière pratique étant donné votre expérience en la matière. Je précise enfin que nous avons largement le temps ce matin de débattre de ce sujet donc chaque orateur bénéficie de sept-huit minutes pour lancer le débat sur son thème. Vous avez la parole Mr. Robin Jacob.

00:00:00: Mr. Robin Jacob, Judge, High Court of Justice

Good morning. In July some European patent judges went to the patent office of the Supreme Court of China. Apart from seeing the economic miracle within China, we learned what has been achieved in patents in since the time of the death of chairman Mao in 1977. Not yet fully functional, the Chinese are creating – amazingly in a communist state – a fully fledged patent system with a fully fleged courts. The money they have spent on courts is something I have never seen.

(…)

00:00:00: Mr. Benoît Battistelli, Director general, French National Institute for Industrial Property and Vice-Chairman of the board of the European Patent Office (moderator)

Merci beaucoup. Je pense qu'effectivement la création de ce pool est un des éléments essentiels du projet que nous avons sur la table. M. Hoyng, vous présider l'association des avocats spécialisés en brevets. Vous avez à travers de vous-même et de votre association largement contribués aux travaux en cours. Je crois pouvoir dire que vous exprimer globalement un certain soutien pour les projets en cours mais je crois savoir que vous avez quelques soucis ou quelques constatations principales et je pense qu'il est intéressant de vous entendre sur ces éléments.

00:00:00: Mr. Willem A. Hoyng, President, European Patent Lawyers Association

Thank you Mr. President. I think in general EPLAW is in favour and supports the remarquable work which has been done by the Commission. I don't hide anything when I say that during its first Venice congress, and we are now going towards its fourth congress which is a congress where we invite together with the EPO, specialized european patent judges and certain specialized members of the bar, that during its first Venice congress… During its first Venice congress, we all were very much in favour of the than EPLA project what we mean EPLA and EPLA is similar … what we thought is that it would be a very good idea to come to assemble a litigation system. We have a very good central mechanism in obtaining european patents although there are certain improvements that in a certain time should be achieved but we are satisfied with … working and clearly working is this simple unfortunate system. And i think i should say one thing about that very often the project which is now the EPLA project was seen as threatening very small enterprises. I think it's very much to the comfort. Everybody who believes a decision in previous lawyers accord justice which in fact put an end to the cross-border injunction as such a convention can sometimes…
shows that the .. is unable to reinforce this european patents. in Europe because if he wants to do that, he has to go to many juridictions and litigate over and over again and is clearly in a disadvantage against bigger companies who have resources to do that. so it's clearly an unequality just apart from all the inefficencies, just looking back … in Japan, the United States, China, India, etc. So, we need that. So we were very much in favour of that concept. Now, when the Commission indicated that that was literaly a … move, we were happy. But we have not been happy until then because the Commission clearly compromises and is now ….something that… which clearly has the influence of the stakeholders, of the people which it is all about. So we are in general in favour. But ehm, we should also get that this should be a workable system and there should be no political compromises in making it a work process. and there are certain things which I think can be improved. There are some criticism which I think should not be forgotten. and they are four. First of all … : I think it's a good idea to have this court. It's certainly a good idea to have .. national panelist. And second, I would very much support …. political … I think it's politically at the moment, not possible to have panels with judges of different nationalities. … So we have to deal with the system … which at least ensures us that each panel is mixed national and in fact, we also talk … it's strange to talk about different nationalities within Europe. We are one nationality which is European. But the … we are making lots of … So why is this system very good? because what I hope and should happen is that we have a wonderful nice presidence who supports the members of the panels. so we… third member of the panel take an example… … Now would the system be good? because i think we would have an exchange of ideas of … but also if the president is … should not happen … we have extremious patent systems….but we have also …so we will also have some … experiences. And it's very nice to have a patent judge academy but you don't learn patent law at an academy. You will learn in practice. SO if you mix the panels between experienced and unexperienced, you will have an exchange of ideas and at the same time you get a good educational process. So i think in essence, that is a good system. Of course what is important is that the appointment of judges to the patent pool should not be entirely based on political considerations. And i think that all of the advising committees which is very important, so the people in the advisory committee are very important. They should be experienced patent judges…patent attorneys, people from industry and servants so that we get a good panel. And that panel gives advice and let's hope that the advice is followed. Now, I think the system could work. Two further remarks : One is what Robin Jacobs said about forum shopping. I think indeed it is not good if you have a system where you prefer one court or the other court. the idea is that all courts are equal. On the other hand, I am very much against the proposal that has been made by the European bar association, by the danish bar, about the fact that the sentence can only be suit in its place of reference. So that would mean that if you have a company in Poland who is infringing, allegedly infringing all over Europe, you can only sue him in Poland. The present system, in the present system, in the proposal stands if the company sells in Europe and decides to sell also outside its own country or region, you can sue that company in any local court within Europe, local decision in Europe. I think that is an absolutly normal system that is a classical system. If you choose to go to a certain market, you can be sued in that market. And we should not take that away I think. Because in practice and we have to be honest with ourselves, in practice we will not get local courts in the beginning which will….that type of experience. And I don't like to see an American company establish itself in an uneperienced country and selling to a company in an unexperienced country in order to do in fact forum shopping, making sure you can only be sued in that country. So that's an unwise proposal which goes against … and I think the system in the country it would work against the system. My last point is about representation. My … is that I am a litigate. So if I say certain things people would say you have to talk for your own protection. I can not take that away. I'm not a patent attorney and I have to talk in the conception I have. But I cannot see a system and I don't want to see a system where you say that patent attorneys can represent parties which the European court system allows. and I have never understood that. If … liability that support …. of a very high, technical nature in national courts. Is than an architect or something … case…or is the lawyer…It is the lawyer that is … And why… Not because we want to promote lawyers, make them rich or whatever. No. Because justice is served in the best way when that happens. Because all this technicals are decided in legal courts which procedural rules, procedural communications. And we know them. Think about clues, etc., etc. And so, I think the system would only work when you have members of the bar who represent parties and of course patent attorneys who can appear in court, can argue in court but always together with the legal man, the member of the bar. I add something and I will stop with the … I'm thinking it is very strange that an unexperienced member of the bar of the South of the Netherlands …. can in a …. court argue a patent case. SO I have nothing against a system where you would have a specialised bar and that is nothing special because for instance the french Cour de cassation or think about Belgium where you have specialised attorneys who deal with this type of case. So if the system would go back to a specialised bar, and the members of that bar, the … members of that bar with a certain commission consisting of specialised judges allows you to become a member … I think that would only serve the system. … we need a system which is consistent, which renders good decisions within the reasonable time. Thank you Mr. President.

00:00:00: Mr. Benoît Battistelli, Director general, French National Institute for Industrial Property and Vice-Chairman of the board of the European Patent Office (moderator)

Merci beaucoup Maître Hyong pour ces indications et précisions et l'expérience que vous nous apportez dans ces domaines. Nous allons maintenant passer la parole à Maître Pagenberg et vous posez, Maître Pagenberg, la question de l'exclusivité de la compétence de cette juridiction européenne des brevets. Il y a un certain nombre de quelques industries ou politiques qui se posent la question de l'utilité de cette exclusivité et de savoir si elle ne pourrait pas être compatible avec un traitement national de contentieux qui seraient nationaux. Et je dois dire que ceci mérite réflexion puisque qu'est-ce que cela veut dire un traitement national d'un contentieux qui serait national dans le cadre d'un marché intégré. C'est donc la question que je vous pose.

00:00:00: Mr. Jochen Pagenberg, Lawyer, Bardehle & Pagenberg

Thank you very much. This question did come up very recently during the discussion on the new proposal …. First of all I should say basically … in Germany, I am… with the German litigation system. We have very …. judges so who have their job for a lifetime so they know what that law is all about. They have a great efficiency, they have speed and quality of their decisions but I understand also the wishes of many of my clients who say that one could improve that, one could do away with much the litigation, one could say … one could do it all in one job eh of course the idea of this … is the reach. Now we have a big … which in my understanding and I have worked more than eight years within the EPLA was … even a group minority within the EPLA which was the case for a long time, and therefore we have what has been … really preventable … and mentioned… Now, nevertheless recently member countries and a number of associations have come up with a list of wishes, with criticism, with also clear opposition against … the proposal. it fears that the immunity which has … … which is the European EU legislation needs to be difficult to reach. I have therefore inquired … what …are…..and it appears that many practioners and also the countries do not want to do away with what they have now in a system which is working that leds nicely one in the other one but anyway to replace the existing system by something totally new seems to be a bit … Therefore … solution to satisfy only. Now my proposal would be that one should reconsider the question of exclusivity which so far exists in the proposal. It is no question that of course exclusivity towards the community must be for the community patent (?) but is this also necessary for the … European bundle patent system which we have today? First of all such a bundle patent has not the legitimacy in all the member states… in 3 countries, 5 or whatever. SO there is not single market, the union of a single market. Second, the thing is that there are a number of cases where SMEs, the small and medium sized companies

00:00:00: Mr. Tim Frain, Director IPR, Regulatory Affairs, Nokia Corporation

00:00:00: Mr. Eurico Marques Dos Reis, Judge, Court of Appeal of Lisboa

00:00:00: Mr. Axel Casalonga, IP Counsel, Bureau .A. Casalonga - Josse

Todo

  1. Split the WAV file in multiple parts, in order to distribute the workload.

Links