European Commission pushes for software patents via a trusted court
Brussels, 12 May 2009 — The European Commission is pushing for software patents via a centralised trusted patent court that would be created with the United Patent Litigation System (UPLS), an international treaty that would remove national courts. This court system would be shielded against any review by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Thus patent judges would have the last word on software patents.
At the next Competitiveness meeting of May 28-29, the Council of Ministers will request a legal opinion to the ECJ about potential conflicts of the UPLS with the EU treaties. The current draft mentions that the ultimate power to interpret patent law will rest with hand-picked patent judges.
Hartmut Pilch, founder of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) predicted this already in 2007: "I don't think EU joining European Patent Convention (EPC) would automatically mean that ECJ can intervene on substantive patent law questions. If there is a ECJ above the European Patent Judiciary (EPJ), then probably only for very special questions relating to areas outside patent law, such as EU treaties, and it would not be accessible to the litigating parties but only to the EPJ itself."
Benjamin Henrion, President of the FFII and leader of its litigation working group, says: "A central patent court forbidding any petition right for review to the ECJ means the patent court has the last word over software patents. The Agreement is drafted in a way to avoid the ECJ intervention on substantive patent law."
Brian Kahin, senior fellow of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, says: "Given the U.S. experience with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the many areas where the Supreme Court has recently stepped in to provide balance, it is clear that the European Court of Justice needs to be able to oversee the evolution of patent law. Otherwise, there is constant danger that a self-interested patent community will successfully press to expand the scope, volume, and power of the patent system."
The UPLS carries the risk that specialized patent courts will have the last word for important questions such as limits of patentability. This is typically what happens in Germany where the Senates of the Federal Patent Court should refer basic questions to the Supreme Court but do not do this.
Benjamin Henrion concludes: "This specialized patent court will be shielded against external intervention and won't be an EU institution. Those patent judges want to have the last word over European patent law."
The proposed United Patent Litigation System (UPLS) is an international treaty which is heavily inspired by the now defunct European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA).
In 2005, large companies asked the European Parliament to drop the software patent directive, and push for a central patent court instead.
The German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology clarified that the validation of software patents goes via central caselaw: "We must moreover continue to attempt to harmonise the practise of granting patents for computer-implemented inventions at the European level. This is to be attempted by a common European patent court system (EPLA) in which the member states can voluntarily participate. Thereby a unified procedure and legal certainty are achieved."
The current UPLS draft is shielded against ECJ intervention in software patents and substantive patent law. The centralised patent court won't be an EU institution.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities would only "rule on preliminary questions asked by the court structure established in the framework of the Unified Patent Litigation System, […] on the interpretation of EC law and on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community." The UPLS itself would not be a "institution of the Community" (the EPO is not either) and thus not fall under ECJ jurisdiction.
On the other side of the Atlantic, specialized patent courts in the United States (CAFC) have watered down the patentability requirements, allowing software patents, business method patents and lowered the threshold for patent quality. The poster child of the lowering quality is the Dembiczak case, where the specialized patent court allowed a patent over a plastic bag with a pumpkin drawing. The Supreme Court judges overturned the patent, heavily criticising the obviousness threshold of the specialized patent court: "This is gobbledygook. It really is, it's irrational. It's worse than meaningless."
- Council: European And Community Patents Court Draft Agreement
- European Commission: Recommendation to the Council to authorise the Commission to open negotiations on a Unified Patent Litigation System
- European Commission: Next steps for creation of unified patent litigation system
- FFII EPLA WG: Hartmut Pilch's 2007 vision on EU-EPLA and software patents
- SSLUG: TBA -> EBA EPC 112!
- Forexpros: EU takes key step towards bloc-wide patent system
- FFII: Single EU patent law good for US giants, bad for small EU firms
- NoSoftwarePatents.com: Round 3
- Eupaco2: John Duffy: Optimal Centralization in Patent Institutions
- StopSoftwarePatents: "Council seeks to legalise software patents with the Community Patent" says French expert
- BMWI: Patente auf computerimplementierte Erfindungen
- FFII EPLA WG: The EPLA plan for software patents
- EuropeanVoice: Czechs call for unity on patent legislation
- Permanent link to this press release
+32-2-414 84 03
About the FFII
The FFII is a not-for-profit association active in over fifty countries, dedicated to the development of information goods for the public benefit, based on copyright, free competition, and open standards. More than 1000 members, 3,500 companies and 100,000 supporters have entrusted the FFII to act as their voice in public policy questions concerning exclusion rights in data processing.