South East MEP Sharon Bowles comments on proposals for single European patent (Crawley Liberal Democrats)

Crawley Liberal Democrats <info@southeastlibdems.org.uk>

South East MEP Sharon Bowles comments on proposals for single European patent

December 1, 2010 3:00 PM
Originally published by Sharon Bowles MEP

It has long been an ambition for there to be a proper European Patent that covers the whole of the single market and which can also be enforced or challenged at a single point.

In the 1970s, facing failure to agree anything, a completely separate international treaty set up the European Patent Organisation which can examine and grant so-called European Patents. However, once granted, there is a registration process for each country in which the patent is to take effect, a major cost being translations which, on average, cost €14,000. This is one of the major reasons why registrations are not made in all the possible countries.

The latest stage of attempting to get a true EU Patent rather than this bundle of registered European Patents has again stalled around the issue of languages.

Sharon Bowles MEP, who is the European Parliament's only European Patent Attorney, said:

"Statistics show that the vast majority of patents that it is wished to obtain on an international basis are either prepared in English, or translated into English as the dominant technical language. Other European countries are reluctant to be seen to be giving up their languages and the UK can obviously understand those concerns and does not tend to press on the language issue.

"The European Patent Organisation has used three alternative official languages, English, French and German since its outset in 1978. This has been successful, albeit with English dominating, and in the absence of going for an English-only option which many businesses actually favour (bearing in mind a US patent or international Patent Cooperation Treaty application in English will often be made) it is an obvious model to follow and would benefit businesses across Europe.

"The major arguments against any kind of streamlining of the language regime (whether that be one, three or five languages) relate to how small businesses will cope, but there are many more than five languages in the EU. Anything requiring compulsory translation would be worse than the status quo offered by the European Patent organisation.

"Political and legal sensitivities prevent an overall agreement being reached but it is possible for an 'enhanced cooperation' procedure to be used for countries that are prepared to agree on a reduced language regime. If needed, this should be used as it could potentially cover the most active markets, and from a UK perspective it is a 'no brainer' for our companies even if we have been squeamish about pursuing something that is so beneficial to us. Once underway, I am optimistic that those countries that could not be seen to abandon their own national languages will nevertheless see the benefit of joining in."

ENDS