epla.ffii.org

The EPLA proposal for Software Patents

1. Background to EPLA
2. EPLA's architecture
3. Comparison to the US model
4. How EPLA would be implemented
5. EPLA delivers software patents
6. The pro-EPLA campaigning
7. EPLA is an EPO proposal
8. Stopping EPLA

The Software Patent fight goes on

The FFII has identified three separate ways for the EPO and patent industry to win software patents in Europe:

1. Create a specialized court to impose the EPO "interpretation" of the European Patent Convention on EU member states (this is EPLA).
2. Modify the EPC Implementing Regulations to legitimise the current practice. This is how the EPO implemented biotech patents. It would require 75% of EPC signatories under the new EPC 2000 treaty (in force from December 2007).
3. Modify the EPC itself, removing the constraints of article 52. This would require a unanimous vote of EPC signatories under EPC 2000.

Quotes

"The acrimonious debate over the proposed directive on computer-implemented inventions might never have arisen if the patent litigation system in Europe had been unified, thereby eliminating the possibility of disparate national rulings on the same patent matter."

— David Sant, former EPO lobbyist in Brussels

"The industry-based driving force behind the EPLA comes from the pro-software patent group as a way to ensuring that their software or potential software patents are fully enforceable across Europe."

— Alison Crofts, Patent expert Alison Crofts says EPLA is pushed by pro-software patents lobby

“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.”

— German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology

"The large multinationals who are pushing for the European Patent Court may be more concerned about the substance of European patent law rather than the need for a single forum […] The treatment of software is certainly one area of law that seems to concern large multinationals in ITC industries a lot, but I suspect that they look at the European Patent Court more generally as a way of influencing patent policy without having to go through the more skeptical European Parliament."

— Jim Bessen, Research on Innovation

"Baumann added that the new court was not intended to "codify software patents ", but it was hoped it would provide better intellectual property protection for inventions with embedded software, such as mobile phones and satellite navigation systems."

— James Murray, IT Week

"The current situation shows why such talks are necessary – a central European patent court will help bring the certainty that, in a number of areas such as software and biotechnology, we currently do not have."

— Joff Wild, Intellectual Asset Management Magazine

"Applying the EPLA to software patents granted by the EPO would create a dangerous body of jurisprudence on an issue which was clearly discarded by the European Parliament and by European stakeholders one year ago."

— UEAPME, Patent litigation agreement is not a substitute to a comprehensive patent policy

"From a software-patents point of view, the EPLA would have far worse consequences than the rejected patentability directive would have had: not only would software patents become more enforceable in Europe but also would patent-holders in general be encouraged to litigate."

— Florian Mueller, software developer who founded the NoSoftwarePatents campaign

"All the European institutions and industry have worked hard and constructively on the issue of CII patents for some time. Europe’s high tech industry will support the efforts of the European institutions to find broader improvements to the European patent system that will particularly benefit the interests of smaller companies."

— EICTA, Europe’s High Tech Industry Welcomes European Parliament Decision

"According to the Parliament, the Community Patent has been mentioned by a number of MEPs as the appropriate legislative instrument to address the issue of software patentability."

— Out-law, Community Patent gets embroiled in software patent fight (7th July 2005)

"Does the Community Patent restart the debate over patents for computer-implemented inventions (software patents)? Why or why not? Pilch: It restarts the push for software patents, without a debate.[…] The Community Patent plan doesn't even mention the subject of software, although, make no mistake about it, software patentability is one of the main drivers of these plans."

— NoSoftwarePatents.com, Current situation

"The Council and a part of the Commission seeks to legalise software patents illegally granted by the European Patent Office (an extra-community institution outside of any control) through the implementation of the Community Patent […]."

— François Pellegrini, Etoile: François Pellegrini, défenseur des libertés numériques et candidat aux élections européennes

"The IPR system also needs to be improved by the creation of a Community patent for innovative ICT companies to protect their inventions in the single market."

— European Commision, A Strategy for ICT R&D and Innovation in Europe: Raising the Game

"The purpose of the unified Patent Court is ­ inter alia ­ to reduce the variety of interpretations of patent scope and claim interpretation in Europe, especially at non-specialized courts."

— Commission: Economic Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Unified and Integrated European Patent System

"In July 2005, after several failed attempts to legalise software patents in Europe, the patent establishment changed its strategy. Instead of explicitly seeking to sanction the patentability of software, they are now seeking to create a central European patent court, which would establish and enforce patentability rules in their favor, without any possibility of correction by competing courts or democratically elected legislators."

— Eupat: Patentability and Democracy in Europe

"Now, currently, in a few cases in some very specific fields (biotech and IT) differences arise in how the national courts interprete the EPC. This can be solved either via a common court which would set EU (or EPOrg) wide case law, or by legislating those gray zones. However, the latest attempt to harmonise EU patent law regarding one of those grey zones (the CII directive) was the fiasco we all remember."

— IPJur: Yet Another Revised Proposal For A Council Regulation On The Community Patent