Each serves distinct and important
purposes. Overall, the intellectual property system benefits society as a
whole, ensuring that the needs of both the creator and the user are
satisfied. Intellectual property rights usually allow the creator or
inventor to commercially exploit his/her work exclusively for a
limited period of time. In return for granting such rights, society
benefits in a number of ways including through the sharing of
technological information by means of public disclosure of
patent information.
Intellectual property rights, including patents,
contribute to society by maintaining competition and encouraging the
production of a wide range of quality goods and services, underpinning
economic growth and employment, promoting technological and
cultural advances and enriching the pool of public knowledge and
culture.
Ultimately, intellectual property rights
(IPRs) - and in particular patents - are key to translating inventions
into commercially successful ventures thereby enhancing competitiveness.
IPRs are the linchpin to the process of innovation and are key to
building a better future based on the knowledge economy, in Europe and
elsewhere.
A radical overhaul of the patent system based on the European Patent Convention is unnecessary as the present system works well. In this regard, the rules of the European Patent Convention— supplemented by those of the Strasbourg Convention on Unification of Certain Points of Substantive Law on Patents for Invention (Strasbourg Convention) — provide a clear, harmonized and balanced patent framework that promotes innovation and competition.
However, the lack of a common patent court system add costs and creates uncertainty, impeding innovation. The cost of obtaining patent protection in Europe, including translation costs, makes it difficult for small innovators to participate fully in the patent system.
Accordingly, reducing translation costs for patent owners and establishing a European patent
litigation system such as that proposed in the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA)
should be a key priority.
A revisiting of substantive patent law—whether through a horizontal harmonization effort or in the context of the Community patent—is not warranted.