2011/0094(CNS)

Enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection: implementation; translation arrangements

Procedure completed

General
Activities
Documents
Votes
Amendments (28)
History

2011/0094(CNS) Enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection: implementation; translation arrangements

Role	Committee	Rapporteur	Shadows
Lead	JURI	BALDASSARRE Raffaele (EPP)	BERLINGUER Luigi (S&D), THEIN Alexandra (ALDE), ENGSTRÖM Christian (Verts/ALE), KARIM Sajjad (ECR)

Lead committee dossier: JURI/7/05847
Legal Basis TFEU TFEU 118 -a2

Subjects

3.50.16 Industrial property, European patent, Community patent, design and pattern

Links

Activites

2012/12/31 Final act published in Official Journal
#3211
2012/12/17 Council Meeting
2012/12/17 End of procedure in Parliament
2012/12/17 Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
2012/12/11 Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
- T7-0475/2012 summary
  
  The European Parliament adopted by 481 votes to 152, with 49 abstentions, in the framework of a special legislative procedure (consultation of Parliament), a legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. The European Parliament approves the Commissions proposal subject to the following amendments: Purpose: the amendments stipulate that: the Regulation regulates the translation arrangements applicable to European patents to the extent that they have unitary effect; it is without prejudice to the rules governing the languages of the institutions of the Union established in accordance with Article 342 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to Council Regulation 1/1958; it is based on the linguistic regime of the European Patent Office and should not be regarded as creating a specific linguistic regime for the Union, or as creating a precedent for a limited language regime in any future legal instrument of the Union. Translation arrangements for the European patent with unitary effect: once available, the machine translations of patent applications and specifications into all languages of the Union shall be made available online and free of charge on publication of the patent application and of the granted patent. After the end of the transitional period referred to in the Regulation, the participating Member States shall, pursuant to Article 143 of the EPC, give the European Patent Office the task of publishing an additional full translation of the specification into English, if such additional translation has been provided voluntarily by the applicant. Such translation shall not be carried out by automated means. Disputes: in the case of a dispute relating to a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor shall provide at the request and the choice of an alleged infringer, a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which either the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. Such translation shall not be carried out by automated means. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages, the court hearing the dispute shall take into consideration whether, especially if it is a small or medium-sized enterprise, a natural person, a non-profit organisation, a university or a public research organisation, the alleged infringer has acted without knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that he was infringing the patent. Compensation scheme: the compensation scheme referred to in the Regulation shall be funded through the fees referred to in Regulation on substantive provisions and shall be available only for small and medium-sized enterprises, natural persons, non profit organisations, universities and public research organisations having their residence or principal place of business within a Member State of the Union. The compensation scheme shall ensure full reimbursement of the translation costs up to a ceiling set in such a way as to reflect the average market price for translations and to avoid abuse. Entry into force: the Regulation shall apply from 1 January 2014 or from the date of entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, whichever is the later.
- Results of vote in Parliament
#3208
2012/12/10 Council Meeting
#3169
2012/05/30 Council Meeting
#3147
2012/02/20 Council Meeting
2012/01/09 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
- A7-0002/2012 summary
  
  The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted, in the framework of a special legislative procedure, the report drafted by Raffaele BALDASSARRE (EPP, IT) on the for a Council regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. It recommends that the European Parliament amend the Commission proposal as follows: Purpose: the amendments stipulate that: the Regulation regulates the translation arrangements applicable to European patents to the extent that they have unitary effect; it is without prejudice to the rules governing the languages of the institutions of the Union established in accordance with Article 342 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to Council Regulation 1/1958; it is based on the linguistic regime of the European Patent Office and should not be regarded as creating a specific linguistic regime for the Union, or as creating a precedent for a limited language regime in any future legal instrument of the Union. Translation arrangements for the European patent with unitary effect: once available, the machine translations of patent applications and specifications into all languages of the Union shall be made available online and free of charge on publication of the patent application and of the granted patent. After the end of the transitional period referred to in the Regulation, the participating Member States shall, pursuant to Article 143 of the EPC, give the European Patent Office the task of publishing an additional full translation of the specification into English, if such additional translation has been provided voluntarily by the applicant. Such translation shall not be carried out by automated means. Disputes: in the case of a dispute relating to a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor shall provide at the request and the choice of an alleged infringer, a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which either the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. Such translation shall not be carried out by automated means. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages, the court hearing the dispute shall take into consideration whether, especially if it is a small or medium-sized enterprise, a natural person, a non-profit organisation, a university or a public research organisation, the alleged infringer has acted without knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that he was infringing the patent. Compensation scheme: the compensation scheme referred to in the Regulation shall be funded through the fees referred to in Regulation on substantive provisions and shall be available only for small and medium-sized enterprises, natural persons, non profit organisations, universities and public research organisations having their residence or principal place of business within a Member State of the Union. The compensation scheme shall ensure full reimbursement of the translation costs up to a ceiling set in such a way as to reflect the average market price for translations and to avoid abuse. Entry into force: the Regulation shall apply from 1 January 2014 or from the date of entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, whichever is the later.
- JURI JURI/7/05847 BALDASSARRE Raffaele EPP
2011/12/20 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
- JURI JURI/7/05847 BALDASSARRE Raffaele EPP
2011/10/26 Amendments tabled in committee
- PE475.788
2011/09/27 Committee draft report
- PE472.334
#extr
2011/06/27 Council Meeting
2011/06/07 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
- JURI JURI/7/05847 BALDASSARRE Raffaele EPP
#3094
2011/05/30 Council Meeting
2011/04/13 Legislative proposal
- COM(2011)0216 summary
  
  PURPOSE: to implement enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. PROPOSED ACT: Council Regulation. BACKGROUND: the current patent system in the EU, in particular in terms of translation requirements, involves very high costs and complexity. The overall cost of validation of an average European patent reaches 12 500 EUR if validated only in 13 Member States and over 32 000 EUR if validated in the whole EU. It is estimated that the actual validation costs are around 193 million EUR per year in the EU. Despite of broad recognition of the competitive disadvantage European business faces in the absence of unitary patent protection, the Union has not been able to establish unitary patent protection. The Commission first proposed a Council Regulation on the Community patentin August 2000. On 30 June 2010 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation on the translation arrangements for the EU patent. It was confirmed at the Competitiveness Council meeting on 10 December 2010 that insurmountable difficulties existed, making a decision requiring unanimity impossible now and in the foreseeable future. 25 Member States then asked for recourse enhanced cooperation in the area of unitary patent protection (all Member States except Italy and Spain) in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection. The proposal for the authorising decision was adopted by the Council, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, on 10 March 2011. The present regulation implements the enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection as authorised by Council Decision 2011/167/EU.. IMPACT ASSESSMENT : the proposal is accompanied by an impact assessment which analyses the impacts of the following options: Option 1(base-line scenario): the Commission takes no action; Option 2: the Commission continues to work with the other institutions towards an EU patent covering 27 Member States; Option 3: the Commission presents proposals for regulations implementing enhanced cooperation: Sub-option 3.1 - the Commission proposes translation arrangements applicable in the area of unitary patent protection that correspond to its proposal of 30 June 2010, or Sub-option 3.2 - the Commission proposes translation arrangements applicable in the area of unitary patent protection based on its proposal of 30 June 2010 and incorporating elements of a compromise proposal discussed by the Council. The analysis carried out in the impact assessment has demonstrated that option 3 with sub-option 3.2 is the preferred option. LEGAL BASIS: Article 118(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU provides for a specific legal basis to establish language arrangements applicable to European intellectual property rights providing uniform protection throughout the Union by means of regulations adopted by a special legislative procedure with the Council acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament. CONTENT: the proposal aims to implement the enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection authorised by Council Decision No 2011/167/EU with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. The main provisions are as follows : Translation arrangements for the European patent with unitary effect: the proposal provides that where the specification of a European patent with unitary effect has been published, no further translations are required. The EPC provides that the specification of a European patent is published in the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO) and includes a translation of the claims into the other two official languages of the EPO. Further translations are only requested in case of a dispute and during a transitional period as stated in the Regulation. A request for unitary effect is to be submitted in the language of the proceedings. Translation in the case of a dispute: in the case of a dispute concerning a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor provides a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which e ither the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. The patent proprietor would also be required to provide, at the request of the court competent in the territories of the participating Member States for disputes concerning the European patent with unitary effect, a full translation of the patent into the language of proceedings of that court. Such translations would be provided at the expense of the patent proprietor. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages the court hearing the dispute would take into consideration that, before having been provided with a translation in his own language, the alleged infringer may have acted in good faith and may have not known or had reasonable grounds to know that he was infringing the patent. Administration of a compensation scheme: the proposal provides that the administration of a compensation scheme for applicants filing patent applications in one of the official languages of the Union that is not an official language of the EPO is entrusted by the participating Member States to the European Patent Office. Transitional measures: the text provides for transitional measures to be applied during a certain period, before a system of high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union becomes available. Therefore, during a transitional period, a request for unitary effect as referred to in the Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection shall be accompanied by the following: (i) a full translation of the specification of such patent into English where the language of the proceedings before the EPO of the EPC is French or German; or (ii) a full translation of the specification of such patent into any official language of the participating Member States that is an official language of the Union where the language of the proceedings before the EPO is English. The transitional period should terminate as soon as high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union are available. The quality of machine translations should be regularly and objectively evaluated by an independent expert committee established by the participating Member States in the framework of the European Patent Organisation and composed of representatives of the European Patent Office and users of the European patent system. It is considered that the machine translations into all official languages of the Union should be developed within 12 years at the latest. Therefore, if the transitional period is not terminated by the Council on the basis of the proposal of the Commission, it should automatically lapse 12 years after this Regulation becomes applicable. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no impact on the Union budget.
- SEC(2011)0483
- DG {u'url': u'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/', u'title': u'Internal Market and Services'}, BARNIER Michel

Documents

Legislative proposal published: COM(2011)0216
Document attached to the procedure: SEC(2011)0483
Committee draft report: PE472.334
Amendments tabled in committee: PE475.788
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A7-0002/2012
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0475/2012
Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament

Votes

A7-0002/2012 - Raffaele Baldassarre - Am 16rev

2012/12/11

Position	Total	ALDE	ECR	EFD	GUE/NGL	NI	PPE	S&D	Verts/ALE	correctional
For	171	2	10	15	21	23	22	26	52	6
Against	513	77	38	15	8	3	220	151	1	2
Abstain	3	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0

A7-0002/2012 - Raffaele Baldassarre - Résolution législative

2012/12/11

Position	Total	ALDE	ECR	EFD	GUE/NGL	NI	PPE	S&D	Verts/ALE	correctional
For	481	74	38	8	5	6	201	148	1	1
Against	152	1	9	13	21	10	26	22	50	5
Abstain	49	3	1	9	3	10	15	6	2	0

A7-0002/2012 - Raffaele Baldassarre - Legislative resolution

2012/12/11

Position	Total	ALDE	ECR	EFD	GUE/NGL	NI	PPE	S&D	Verts/ALE	correctional
For	481	74	38	8	5	6	201	148	1	1
Against	152	1	9	13	21	10	26	22	50	5
Abstain	49	3	1	9	3	10	15	6	2	0

Amendments	Dossier
28	2011/0094(CNS) Enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection: implementation; translation arrangements 2011/10/26 JURI 28 amendments... Amendment 20 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 (8) In the case of a dispute concerning a European patent with unitary effect, it is a legitimate requirement that the patent proprietor should provide a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which either the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. For reasons of legal certainty, the translation must be a faithful reflection of the original wording of the patent. The patent proprietor should also be required to provide, at the request of a court competent in the territory of the participating Member States for disputes concerning the European patent with unitary effect, a full translation of the patent into the language of proceedings of that court. Such translations should not be carried out by automated means and should be provided at the expense of the patent proprietor. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages the court hearing the dispute should take into consideration that, before having been provided with a translation in his own language, the alleged infringer ~~may have acted in good faith and may~~could not have ~~not~~ known ~~or had reasonable grounds to know~~ that he was infringing the patent. The competent court should assess the circumstances of the individual case and inter alia should take into account whether the alleged infringer is a small and medium-sized enterprise operating only at local level, the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office and, during the transitional period, the translation submitted together with the request for unitary effect. Amendment 21 # Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 (8) In the case of a dispute concerning a European patent with unitary effect, it is a legitimate requirement that the patent proprietor should provide a full translation of the patent into an official or co-official language of the participating Member State in which either the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. The patent proprietor should also be required to provide, at the request of a court competent in the territory of the participating Member States for disputes concerning the European patent with unitary effect, a full translation of the patent into the language of proceedings of that court. Such translations should not be carried out by automated means and should be provided at the expense of the patent proprietor. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages the court hearing the dispute should take into consideration that, before having been provided with a translation in his own language, the alleged infringer may have acted in good faith and may have not known or had reasonable grounds to know that he was infringing the patent. The competent court should assess the circumstances of the individual case and inter alia should take into account whether the alleged infringer is a small and medium-sized enterprise operating only at local level, the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office and, during the transitional period, the translation submitted together with the request for unitary effect. Amendment 22 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 (9) In order to facilitate access to European patents with unitary effect, in particular for small and medium-size enterprises, applicants who do not have a language in common with one of the official languages of the European Patent Office should be able to file their patent applications and any other procedural documents at the European Patent Office in any other official language of the Union. As a complementary measure, ~~for applicant~~small and medium-sized enterprises, natural persons and non-profit organisations obtaining European patents with unitary effect and having their residence or principal place of business within a Member State of the Union which has as an official language a language other than one of the official languages of the European Patent Office, should benefit from a system of additional reimbursements of the costs related to the translation from that language into the language of the proceedings of the European Patent Office, beyond what is currently already in place at the European Patent Office,. The system of additional reimbursements should be administered by the European Patent Office in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions]. Amendment 23 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 a (new) (9a) In the interests of persons who use a language for filing which is not one of the official languages of the European Patent Office, and taking into consideration European Union practice following the ruling of the Court of Justice in Case C-361/01 P1, the European Patent Office should implement a system in which the language for filing should be used for all correspondence relating to the application unless the applicant expressly indicates that he wishes the European Patent Office to use one of its official languages. ________________________________ 1 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 September 2003 in Case C-361/01 P Kik v OHIM [2003] ECR I-8283. Amendment 24 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) In order to promote the availability of patent information and the dissemination of technological knowledge, machine translations of patent applications and specifications into all official languages of the Union should be available as soon as possible. Machine translations are being developed by the European Patent Office and are a very important tool seeking to improve access to patent information and to disseminate widely the technological knowledge. The timely availability of high quality machine translations of European patent applications and specifications into all official languages of the Union would benefit all the users of the European patent system. ~~Machine translations are a key feature of European Uni~~They should be made available online and free of charge on poublic~~y. Such machine translations should serve for information purposes only and should not have any legal effec~~ation of the patent application and of the granted patent. Amendment 25 # Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) In order to promote the availability of patent information and the dissemination of technological knowledge, machine translations of patent applications and specifications into all official languages of the Union should be available as soon as possible. Machine translations are being developed by the European Patent Office and are a very important tool seeking to improve access to patent information and to disseminate widely the technological knowledge. The timely availability of high quality machine translations of European patent applications and specifications into all official and co-official languages of the ~~Union~~Member States would benefit all the users of the European patent system. Machine translations are a key feature of European Union policy. Such machine translations should serve for information purposes only and should not have any legal effect. Amendment 26 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) During a transitional period~~, before a system of high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union becomes available,~~ a request for unitary effect as referred to in Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] shall be accompanied by a full translation with legal effects of the specification of the patent into English where the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office is French or German, or into any official language of the participating Member States that is an official language of the Union where the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office is English. Those arrangements would ensure that during a transitional period all European patents with unitary effect are made available in English which is the language customary in the field of international technological research and publications. Furthermore, they would ensure that with respect to European patents with unitary effect translations would be published in other official languages of the participating Member States. Such translations should not be carried out by automated means and their high quality should contribute to the training of translation engines by the European Patent Office. They would also enhance the dissemination of patent information. The transitional period should terminate as soon as high quality machine translations into all official language of the Union are available, subject to an objective evaluation of the quality. The quality of machine translations should be regularly and objectively evaluated by an independent expert committee established by the participating Member States in the framework of the European Patent Organisation and composed of the representatives of the European Patent Office and the users of the European patent system. Given the technological development, the maximum periodThey would also enhance the dissemination of patent information. Such translations should not be carried out by automated means. The transitional period should not be longer than four the development of high quality machine translations cannot be considered to exceed 12 years. Consequently, the transitional period should lapse 12 years from the date of application of this Regulation, unless it has been decided to terminate that period earlieryears after the entry into force of this Regulation. Amendment 27 # Rolandas PAKSAS Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 2. A request for unitary effect as referred to in Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] shall be submitted in ~~the~~an official language of the ~~proceed~~European Patent Office of the applicant’s choosings. Amendment 28 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 1. In the case of a dispute relating to a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor shall provide at the request and the choice of an alleged infringer, a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which either the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. The translation must be a faithful reflection of the original wording of the patent. Amendment 29 # Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 1. In the case of a dispute relating to a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor shall provide at the request and the choice of an alleged infringer, a full translation of the patent into an official or co-official language of the participating Member State in which either the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. Amendment 30 # Rolandas PAKSAS Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 1. In the case of a dispute relating to a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor shall provide at the request and the choice of an alleged infringer, a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which either the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer ~~is domiciled~~resides on a permanent basis. Amendment 31 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 4 4. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages, the court hearing the dispute shall take into consideration that the alleged infringer ~~may have acted without knowing or having reasonable grounds to~~could not have known that he was infringing the patent before having been provided with the translation referred to in paragraph 1. Amendment 32 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 Given the fact that European patent applications may be filed in any language under Article 14(2) of the EPC, in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions], the participating Member States, shall give, within the meaning of Article 143 of the EPC, the European Patent Office the task of administering a compensation scheme of reimbursing all translation costs up to a ceiling, from the fees referred to in Article 13 of that Regulation, for applicants filing patent application1. Applicants who do not have a language in common with one of the official languages of the European Patent Office should be able to file their patent applications and any other procedural documents at the European Patent Office in ~~one of~~ any other official languages of the Union ~~that is not an official language of the European Patent Office~~. Amendment 33 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. The participating Member States, shall, within the meaning of Article 143 of the EPC, give the European Patent Office the task of administering a compensation scheme for the reimbursement of all translation costs up to a ceiling, from the fees referred to in Article 13 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions], for applicants filing patent applications or any other procedural documents at the European Patent Office in one of the official languages of the Union that is not an official language of the European Patent Office. Amendment 34 # Raffaele BALDASSARRE Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. The compensation scheme referred to in paragraph 1 shall be funded through the fees referred to in Article 13 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] and shall be available only for small and medium-sized enterprises, natural persons, non-profit organisations and academic institutions having their residence or principal place of business within a Member State of the Union. Amendment 35 # Raffaele BALDASSARRE Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. The compensation scheme referred to in paragraph 1 shall ensure full reimbursement of the translation costs up to a ceiling set in such a way as to reflect the average market price for translations and to avoid abuse. Amendment 36 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. The compensation scheme referred to in paragraph 1 shall be funded through the fees referred to in Article 13 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] and shall be available only for small and medium-sized enterprises, natural persons and non-profit organisations having their residence or principal place of business within a Member State of the Union. Amendment 37 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. The compensation scheme referred to in paragraph 1 shall ensure full of the translation costs up to a ceiling set in such a way as to reflect the average market price for translations and to avoid abuse. Those costs shall not be reimbursed where the European Patent Office rules that a translation into an official language is not necessary. Amendment 38 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 d (new) 1d. In the interests of persons who use a language for filing which is not one of the official languages of the European Patent Office, and taking into consideration European Union practice following the ruling of the Court of Justice in Case C-361/01 P1, the European Patent Office shall implement a system in which the language for filing is used for all correspondence relating to the application unless the applicant expressly indicates that he wishes the European Patent Office to use one of its official languages. ________________________________ 1 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 September 2003 in Case C-361/01 P Kik v OHIM [2003] ECR I-8283. Amendment 39 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1. During a transitional period of not more than four years starting on the date of application of this Regulation in accordance with Article 7(2) of this Regulation, a request for unitary effect as referred to in Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] shall be submitted together with the following: Amendment 40 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a (a) where the language of the proceedings is French or German, a full translation with legal effects of the specification of the European patent into English; or Amendment 41 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b (b) where the language of the proceedings is English, a full translation with legal effects of the specification of the European patent into any official language of the participating Member States that is an official language of the Union. Amendment 42 # Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b (b) where the language of the proceedings is English, a full translation of the specification of the European patent into any official or co-official language of the participating Member States ~~that is an official language of the Union~~. Amendment 43 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 2. In accordance with Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions], the participating Member States, shall give, within the meaning of Article 143 of the EPC, the European Patent Office the task of publishing the translations referred to in paragraph 1 as soon as possible after the date on which a request for unitary effect as referred to in Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] is filed. ~~The text of such translations shall have no legal value and be for information purposes only.~~ Amendment 44 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3 3. Every two years from the sixth year calculated from the date of application of this Regulation, an objective evaluation of the availability of high quality machine translations of patent applications and specifications into all official languages of the Union as developed by the European Patent Office shall be carried out by an independent expert committee. This expert committee shall be established by the participating Member States in the framework of the European Patent Organisation and shall be composed of representatives of the European Patent Office and of the non-governmental organisations representing users of the European patent system invited by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation as observers in accordance with Article 30(3) of the EPC.deleted Amendment 45 # Rolandas PAKSAS Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3 3. Every two years from the ~~six~~fourth year calculated from the date of application of this Regulation, an objective evaluation of the availability of high quality machine translations of patent applications and specifications into all official languages of the Union as developed by the European Patent Office shall be carried out by an independent expert committee. This expert committee shall be established by the participating Member States in the framework of the European Patent Organisation and shall be composed of representatives of the European Patent Office and of the non-governmental organisations representing users of the European patent system invited by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation as observers in accordance with Article 30(3) of the EPC. Amendment 46 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 4 4. On the basis of the evaluation referred to in paragraph 3, every two years the Commission shall present a report to the Council and, if appropriate, make proposals for terminating the transitional periodNot later than four years after the date of application of this Regulation, the Commission shall make the necessary proposals for terminating the transitional period and ensuring that the language for filling, granting and prosecuting is English alone. Amendment 47 # Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 5 ~~5. If the transitional period is not terminated on the basis of a proposal of the Commission, it shall lapse 12 years from the date of application of this Regulation.~~deleted source: PE-475.788

Amendments

Dossier

2011/0094(CNS) Enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection: implementation; translation arrangements

2011/10/26 JURI 28 amendments...

Amendment 20 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) In the case of a dispute concerning a European patent with unitary effect, it is a legitimate requirement that the patent proprietor should provide a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which either the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. For reasons of legal certainty, the translation must be a faithful reflection of the original wording of the patent. The patent proprietor should also be required to provide, at the request of a court competent in the territory of the participating Member States for disputes concerning the European patent with unitary effect, a full translation of the patent into the language of proceedings of that court. Such translations should not be carried out by automated means and should be provided at the expense of the patent proprietor. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages the court hearing the dispute should take into consideration that, before having been provided with a translation in his own language, the alleged infringer ~~may have acted in good faith and may~~could not have ~~not~~ known ~~or had reasonable grounds to know~~ that he was infringing the patent. The competent court should assess the circumstances of the individual case and inter alia should take into account whether the alleged infringer is a small and medium-sized enterprise operating only at local level, the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office and, during the transitional period, the translation submitted together with the request for unitary effect.

Amendment 21 #

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) In the case of a dispute concerning a European patent with unitary effect, it is a legitimate requirement that the patent proprietor should provide a full translation of the patent into an official or co-official language of the participating Member State in which either the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. The patent proprietor should also be required to provide, at the request of a court competent in the territory of the participating Member States for disputes concerning the European patent with unitary effect, a full translation of the patent into the language of proceedings of that court. Such translations should not be carried out by automated means and should be provided at the expense of the patent proprietor. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages the court hearing the dispute should take into consideration that, before having been provided with a translation in his own language, the alleged infringer may have acted in good faith and may have not known or had reasonable grounds to know that he was infringing the patent. The competent court should assess the circumstances of the individual case and inter alia should take into account whether the alleged infringer is a small and medium-sized enterprise operating only at local level, the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office and, during the transitional period, the translation submitted together with the request for unitary effect.

Amendment 22 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) In order to facilitate access to European patents with unitary effect, in particular for small and medium-size enterprises, applicants who do not have a language in common with one of the official languages of the European Patent Office should be able to file their patent applications and any other procedural documents at the European Patent Office in any other official language of the Union. As a complementary measure, ~~for applicant~~small and medium-sized enterprises, natural persons and non-profit organisations obtaining European patents with unitary effect and having their residence or principal place of business within a Member State of the Union which has as an official language a language other than one of the official languages of the European Patent Office, should benefit from a system of additional reimbursements of the costs related to the translation from that language into the language of the proceedings of the European Patent Office, beyond what is currently already in place at the European Patent Office,. The system of additional reimbursements should be administered by the European Patent Office in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions].

Amendment 23 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)

(9a) In the interests of persons who use a language for filing which is not one of the official languages of the European Patent Office, and taking into consideration European Union practice following the ruling of the Court of Justice in Case C-361/01 P1, the European Patent Office should implement a system in which the language for filing should be used for all correspondence relating to the application unless the applicant expressly indicates that he wishes the European Patent Office to use one of its official languages. ________________________________ 1 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 September 2003 in Case C-361/01 P Kik v OHIM [2003] ECR I-8283.

Amendment 24 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10

(10) In order to promote the availability of patent information and the dissemination of technological knowledge, machine translations of patent applications and specifications into all official languages of the Union should be available as soon as possible. Machine translations are being developed by the European Patent Office and are a very important tool seeking to improve access to patent information and to disseminate widely the technological knowledge. The timely availability of high quality machine translations of European patent applications and specifications into all official languages of the Union would benefit all the users of the European patent system. ~~Machine translations are a key feature of European Uni~~They should be made available online and free of charge on poublic~~y. Such machine translations should serve for information purposes only and should not have any legal effec~~ation of the patent application and of the granted patent.

Amendment 25 #

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10

(10) In order to promote the availability of patent information and the dissemination of technological knowledge, machine translations of patent applications and specifications into all official languages of the Union should be available as soon as possible. Machine translations are being developed by the European Patent Office and are a very important tool seeking to improve access to patent information and to disseminate widely the technological knowledge. The timely availability of high quality machine translations of European patent applications and specifications into all official and co-official languages of the ~~Union~~Member States would benefit all the users of the European patent system. Machine translations are a key feature of European Union policy. Such machine translations should serve for information purposes only and should not have any legal effect.

Amendment 26 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) During a transitional period~~, before a system of high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union becomes available,~~ a request for unitary effect as referred to in Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] shall be accompanied by a full translation with legal effects of the specification of the patent into English where the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office is French or German, or into any official language of the participating Member States that is an official language of the Union where the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office is English. Those arrangements would ensure that during a transitional period all European patents with unitary effect are made available in English which is the language customary in the field of international technological research and publications. Furthermore, they would ensure that with respect to European patents with unitary effect translations would be published in other official languages of the participating Member States. Such translations should not be carried out by automated means and their high quality should contribute to the training of translation engines by the European Patent Office. They would also enhance the dissemination of patent information. The transitional period should terminate as soon as high quality machine translations into all official language of the Union are available, subject to an objective evaluation of the quality. The quality of machine translations should be regularly and objectively evaluated by an independent expert committee established by the participating Member States in the framework of the European Patent Organisation and composed of the representatives of the European Patent Office and the users of the European patent system. Given the technological development, the maximum periodThey would also enhance the dissemination of patent information. Such translations should not be carried out by automated means. The transitional period should not be longer than four the development of high quality machine translations cannot be considered to exceed 12 years. Consequently, the transitional period should lapse 12 years from the date of application of this Regulation, unless it has been decided to terminate that period earlieryears after the entry into force of this Regulation.

Amendment 27 #

Rolandas PAKSAS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2

2. A request for unitary effect as referred to in Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] shall be submitted in ~~the~~an official language of the ~~proceed~~European Patent Office of the applicant’s choosings.

Amendment 28 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

1. In the case of a dispute relating to a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor shall provide at the request and the choice of an alleged infringer, a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which either the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. The translation must be a faithful reflection of the original wording of the patent.

Amendment 29 #

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

1. In the case of a dispute relating to a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor shall provide at the request and the choice of an alleged infringer, a full translation of the patent into an official or co-official language of the participating Member State in which either the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled.

Amendment 30 #

Rolandas PAKSAS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

Amendment 31 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4

4. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages, the court hearing the dispute shall take into consideration that the alleged infringer ~~may have acted without knowing or having reasonable grounds to~~could not have known that he was infringing the patent before having been provided with the translation referred to in paragraph 1.

Amendment 32 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1

Given the fact that European patent applications may be filed in any language under Article 14(2) of the EPC, in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions], the participating Member States, shall give, within the meaning of Article 143 of the EPC, the European Patent Office the task of administering a compensation scheme of reimbursing all translation costs up to a ceiling, from the fees referred to in Article 13 of that Regulation, for applicants filing patent application1. Applicants who do not have a language in common with one of the official languages of the European Patent Office should be able to file their patent applications and any other procedural documents at the European Patent Office in ~~one of~~ any other official languages of the Union ~~that is not an official language of the European Patent Office~~.

Amendment 33 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. The participating Member States, shall, within the meaning of Article 143 of the EPC, give the European Patent Office the task of administering a compensation scheme for the reimbursement of all translation costs up to a ceiling, from the fees referred to in Article 13 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions], for applicants filing patent applications or any other procedural documents at the European Patent Office in one of the official languages of the Union that is not an official language of the European Patent Office.

Amendment 34 #

Raffaele BALDASSARRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. The compensation scheme referred to in paragraph 1 shall be funded through the fees referred to in Article 13 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] and shall be available only for small and medium-sized enterprises, natural persons, non-profit organisations and academic institutions having their residence or principal place of business within a Member State of the Union.

Amendment 35 #

Raffaele BALDASSARRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. The compensation scheme referred to in paragraph 1 shall ensure full reimbursement of the translation costs up to a ceiling set in such a way as to reflect the average market price for translations and to avoid abuse.

Amendment 36 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. The compensation scheme referred to in paragraph 1 shall be funded through the fees referred to in Article 13 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] and shall be available only for small and medium-sized enterprises, natural persons and non-profit organisations having their residence or principal place of business within a Member State of the Union.

Amendment 37 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. The compensation scheme referred to in paragraph 1 shall ensure full of the translation costs up to a ceiling set in such a way as to reflect the average market price for translations and to avoid abuse. Those costs shall not be reimbursed where the European Patent Office rules that a translation into an official language is not necessary.

Amendment 38 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 d (new)

1d. In the interests of persons who use a language for filing which is not one of the official languages of the European Patent Office, and taking into consideration European Union practice following the ruling of the Court of Justice in Case C-361/01 P1, the European Patent Office shall implement a system in which the language for filing is used for all correspondence relating to the application unless the applicant expressly indicates that he wishes the European Patent Office to use one of its official languages. ________________________________ 1 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 September 2003 in Case C-361/01 P Kik v OHIM [2003] ECR I-8283.

Amendment 39 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. During a transitional period of not more than four years starting on the date of application of this Regulation in accordance with Article 7(2) of this Regulation, a request for unitary effect as referred to in Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] shall be submitted together with the following:

Amendment 40 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) where the language of the proceedings is French or German, a full translation with legal effects of the specification of the European patent into English; or

Amendment 41 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) where the language of the proceedings is English, a full translation with legal effects of the specification of the European patent into any official language of the participating Member States that is an official language of the Union.

Amendment 42 #

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) where the language of the proceedings is English, a full translation of the specification of the European patent into any official or co-official language of the participating Member States ~~that is an official language of the Union~~.

Amendment 43 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2

2. In accordance with Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions], the participating Member States, shall give, within the meaning of Article 143 of the EPC, the European Patent Office the task of publishing the translations referred to in paragraph 1 as soon as possible after the date on which a request for unitary effect as referred to in Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] is filed. ~~The text of such translations shall have no legal value and be for information purposes only.~~

Amendment 44 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3

3. Every two years from the sixth year calculated from the date of application of this Regulation, an objective evaluation of the availability of high quality machine translations of patent applications and specifications into all official languages of the Union as developed by the European Patent Office shall be carried out by an independent expert committee. This expert committee shall be established by the participating Member States in the framework of the European Patent Organisation and shall be composed of representatives of the European Patent Office and of the non-governmental organisations representing users of the European patent system invited by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation as observers in accordance with Article 30(3) of the EPC.deleted

Amendment 45 #

Rolandas PAKSAS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3

3. Every two years from the ~~six~~fourth year calculated from the date of application of this Regulation, an objective evaluation of the availability of high quality machine translations of patent applications and specifications into all official languages of the Union as developed by the European Patent Office shall be carried out by an independent expert committee. This expert committee shall be established by the participating Member States in the framework of the European Patent Organisation and shall be composed of representatives of the European Patent Office and of the non-governmental organisations representing users of the European patent system invited by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation as observers in accordance with Article 30(3) of the EPC.

Amendment 46 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4

4. On the basis of the evaluation referred to in paragraph 3, every two years the Commission shall present a report to the Council and, if appropriate, make proposals for terminating the transitional periodNot later than four years after the date of application of this Regulation, the Commission shall make the necessary proposals for terminating the transitional period and ensuring that the language for filling, granting and prosecuting is English alone.

Amendment 47 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5

~~5. If the transitional period is not terminated on the basis of a proposal of the Commission, it shall lapse 12 years from the date of application of this Regulation.~~deleted

source: PE-475.788

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

2013-01-27

activities/15

added

date: 2012-12-31

type: Final act published in Official Journal

procedure/final

added

url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32012R1260

title: Regulation 2012/1260

procedure/stage_reached

changed

Old

Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal

New

Procedure completed

2013-01-25

2012-12-21

activities/11/docs/0/text

added

The European Parliament adopted by 481 votes to 152, with 49 abstentions, in the framework of a special legislative procedure (consultation of Parliament), a legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements.

The European Parliament approves the Commission’s proposal subject to the following amendments:

Purpose: the amendments stipulate that:
- the Regulation regulates the translation arrangements applicable to European patents to the extent that they have unitary effect;
- it is without prejudice to the rules governing the languages of the institutions of the Union established in accordance with Article 342 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to Council Regulation 1/1958;
- it is based on the linguistic regime of the European Patent Office and should not be regarded as creating a specific linguistic regime for the Union, or as creating a precedent for a limited language regime in any future legal instrument of the Union.
Translation arrangements for the European patent with unitary effect: once available, the machine translations of patent applications and specifications into all languages of the Union shall be made available online and free of charge on publication of the patent application and of the granted patent.

After the end of the transitional period referred to in the Regulation, the participating Member States shall, pursuant to Article 143 of the EPC, give the European Patent Office the task of publishing an additional full translation of the specification into English, if such additional translation has been provided voluntarily by the applicant. Such translation shall not be carried out by automated means.

Disputes: in the case of a dispute relating to a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor shall provide at the request and the choice of an alleged infringer, a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which either the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. Such translation shall not be carried out by automated means.

In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages, the court hearing the dispute shall take into consideration whether, especially if it is a small or medium-sized enterprise, a natural person, a non-profit organisation, a university or a public research organisation, the alleged infringer has acted without knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that he was infringing the patent.

Compensation scheme: the compensation scheme referred to in the Regulation shall be funded through the fees referred to in Regulation on substantive provisions and shall be available only for small and medium-sized enterprises, natural persons, non profit organisations, universities and public research organisations having their residence or principal place of business within a Member State of the Union.

The compensation scheme shall ensure full reimbursement of the translation costs up to a ceiling set in such a way as to reflect the average market price for translations and to avoid abuse.

Entry into force: the Regulation shall apply from 1 January 2014 or from the date of entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, whichever is the later.

2012-12-19

2012-12-18

2012-12-14

2012-12-01

activities/4/date	changed	Old 2011-10-26 New 2011-09-27
activities/4/docs/0/title	changed	Old PE475.788 New PE472.334
activities/4/docs/0/type	changed	Old Amendments tabled in committee New Committee draft report
activities/4/docs/0/url	changed	Old http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE475.788 New http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE472.334
activities/4/type	changed	Old Amendments tabled in committee New Committee draft report
activities/5	deleted	date 2011-09-27 docs url http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE472.334 type Committee draft report title PE472.334 body EP type Committee draft report
activities/5/date	changed	Old 2011-05-30 New 2011-10-26
activities/5/docs	added	url http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE475.788 type Amendments tabled in committee title PE475.788
activities/5/type	changed	Old EP officialisation New Amendments tabled in committee

2012-11-22

2012-11-15

2012-09-19

2012-07-06

2012-07-03

activities/0	deleted	date 2011-04-13 docs url http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=216 text PURPOSE: to implement enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. PROPOSED ACT: Council Regulation. BACKGROUND: the current patent system in the EU, in particular in terms of translation requirements, involves very high costs and complexity. The overall cost of validation of an average European patent reaches 12 500 EUR if validated only in 13 Member States and over 32 000 EUR if validated in the whole EU. It is estimated that the actual validation costs are around 193 million EUR per year in the EU. Despite of broad recognition of the competitive disadvantage European business faces in the absence of unitary patent protection, the Union has not been able to establish unitary patent protection. The Commission first proposed a Council Regulation on the Community patentin August 2000. On 30 June 2010 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation on the translation arrangements for the EU patent. It was confirmed at the Competitiveness Council meeting on 10 December 2010 that insurmountable difficulties existed, making a decision requiring unanimity impossible now and in the foreseeable future. 25 Member States then asked for recourse enhanced cooperation in the area of unitary patent protection (all Member States except Italy and Spain) in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection. The proposal for the authorising decision was adopted by the Council, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, on 10 March 2011. The present regulation implements the enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection as authorised by Council Decision 2011/167/EU.. IMPACT ASSESSMENT : the proposal is accompanied by an impact assessment which analyses the impacts of the following options: **Option 1(base-line scenario): the Commission takes no action; Option 2: the Commission continues to work with the other institutions towards an EU patent covering 27 Member States; Option 3: the Commission presents proposals for regulations implementing enhanced cooperation: Sub-option 3.1 - the Commission proposes translation arrangements applicable in the area of unitary patent protection that correspond to its proposal of 30 June 2010, or Sub-option 3.2 - the Commission proposes translation arrangements applicable in the area of unitary patent protection based on its proposal of 30 June 2010 and incorporating elements of a compromise proposal discussed by the Council. The analysis carried out in the impact assessment has demonstrated that option 3 with sub-option 3.2 is the preferred option. LEGAL BASIS: Article 118(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU provides for a specific legal basis to establish language arrangements applicable to European intellectual property rights providing uniform protection throughout the Union by means of regulations adopted by a special legislative procedure with the Council acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament. CONTENT: the proposal aims to implement the enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection authorised by Council Decision No 2011/167/EU with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. The main provisions are as follows : Translation arrangements for the European patent with unitary effect: the proposal provides that where the specification of a European patent with unitary effect has been published, no further translations are required. The EPC provides that the specification of a European patent is published in the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO) and includes a translation of the claims into the other two official languages of the EPO. Further translations are only requested in case of a dispute and during a transitional period as stated in the Regulation. A request for unitary effect is to be submitted in the language of the proceedings. Translation in the case of a dispute: in the case of a dispute concerning a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor provides a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which e ither the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. The patent proprietor would also be required to provide, at the request of the court competent in the territories of the participating Member States for disputes concerning the European patent with unitary effect, a full translation of the patent into the language of proceedings of that court. Such translations would be provided at the expense of the patent proprietor. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages the court hearing the dispute would take into consideration that, before having been provided with a translation in his own language, the alleged infringer may have acted in good faith and may have not known or had reasonable grounds to know that he was infringing the patent. Administration of a compensation scheme: the proposal provides that the administration of a compensation scheme for applicants filing patent applications in one of the official languages of the Union that is not an official language of the EPO is entrusted by the participating Member States to the European Patent Office. Transitional measures: the text provides for transitional measures to be applied during a certain period, before a system of high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union becomes available. Therefore, during a transitional period, a request for unitary effect as referred to in the Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection shall be accompanied by the following: (i) a full translation of the specification of such patent into English where the language of the proceedings before the EPO of the EPC is French or German; or (ii) a full translation of the specification of such patent into any official language of the participating Member States that is an official language of the Union where the language of the proceedings before the EPO is English. The transitional period should terminate as soon as high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union are available. The quality of machine translations should be regularly and objectively evaluated by an independent expert committee established by the participating Member States in the framework of the European Patent Organisation and composed of representatives of the European Patent Office and users of the European patent system. It is considered that the machine translations into all official languages of the Union should be developed within 12 years** at the latest. Therefore, if the transitional period is not terminated by the Council on the basis of the proposal of the Commission, it should automatically lapse 12 years after this Regulation becomes applicable. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no impact on the Union budget. title COM(2011)0216 type Legislative proposal published celexid CELEX:52011PC0216:EN type Document attached to the procedure title SEC(2011)0483 body EC type Legislative proposal commission DG url http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title Internal Market and Services Commissioner BARNIER Michel
activities/0/body	changed	Old EP New EC
activities/0/commission	added	DG url http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title Internal Market and Services Commissioner BARNIER Michel
activities/0/date	changed	Old 2011-09-27 New 2011-04-13
activities/0/docs/0	added	url http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=216 text PURPOSE: to implement enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. PROPOSED ACT: Council Regulation. BACKGROUND: the current patent system in the EU, in particular in terms of translation requirements, involves very high costs and complexity. The overall cost of validation of an average European patent reaches 12 500 EUR if validated only in 13 Member States and over 32 000 EUR if validated in the whole EU. It is estimated that the actual validation costs are around 193 million EUR per year in the EU. Despite of broad recognition of the competitive disadvantage European business faces in the absence of unitary patent protection, the Union has not been able to establish unitary patent protection. The Commission first proposed a Council Regulation on the Community patentin August 2000. On 30 June 2010 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation on the translation arrangements for the EU patent. It was confirmed at the Competitiveness Council meeting on 10 December 2010 that insurmountable difficulties existed, making a decision requiring unanimity impossible now and in the foreseeable future. 25 Member States then asked for recourse enhanced cooperation in the area of unitary patent protection (all Member States except Italy and Spain) in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection. The proposal for the authorising decision was adopted by the Council, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, on 10 March 2011. The present regulation implements the enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection as authorised by Council Decision 2011/167/EU.. IMPACT ASSESSMENT : the proposal is accompanied by an impact assessment which analyses the impacts of the following options: **Option 1(base-line scenario): the Commission takes no action; Option 2: the Commission continues to work with the other institutions towards an EU patent covering 27 Member States; Option 3: the Commission presents proposals for regulations implementing enhanced cooperation: Sub-option 3.1 - the Commission proposes translation arrangements applicable in the area of unitary patent protection that correspond to its proposal of 30 June 2010, or Sub-option 3.2 - the Commission proposes translation arrangements applicable in the area of unitary patent protection based on its proposal of 30 June 2010 and incorporating elements of a compromise proposal discussed by the Council. The analysis carried out in the impact assessment has demonstrated that option 3 with sub-option 3.2 is the preferred option. LEGAL BASIS: Article 118(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU provides for a specific legal basis to establish language arrangements applicable to European intellectual property rights providing uniform protection throughout the Union by means of regulations adopted by a special legislative procedure with the Council acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament. CONTENT: the proposal aims to implement the enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection authorised by Council Decision No 2011/167/EU with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. The main provisions are as follows : Translation arrangements for the European patent with unitary effect: the proposal provides that where the specification of a European patent with unitary effect has been published, no further translations are required. The EPC provides that the specification of a European patent is published in the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO) and includes a translation of the claims into the other two official languages of the EPO. Further translations are only requested in case of a dispute and during a transitional period as stated in the Regulation. A request for unitary effect is to be submitted in the language of the proceedings. Translation in the case of a dispute: in the case of a dispute concerning a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor provides a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which e ither the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. The patent proprietor would also be required to provide, at the request of the court competent in the territories of the participating Member States for disputes concerning the European patent with unitary effect, a full translation of the patent into the language of proceedings of that court. Such translations would be provided at the expense of the patent proprietor. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages the court hearing the dispute would take into consideration that, before having been provided with a translation in his own language, the alleged infringer may have acted in good faith and may have not known or had reasonable grounds to know that he was infringing the patent. Administration of a compensation scheme: the proposal provides that the administration of a compensation scheme for applicants filing patent applications in one of the official languages of the Union that is not an official language of the EPO is entrusted by the participating Member States to the European Patent Office. Transitional measures: the text provides for transitional measures to be applied during a certain period, before a system of high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union becomes available. Therefore, during a transitional period, a request for unitary effect as referred to in the Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection shall be accompanied by the following: (i) a full translation of the specification of such patent into English where the language of the proceedings before the EPO of the EPC is French or German; or (ii) a full translation of the specification of such patent into any official language of the participating Member States that is an official language of the Union where the language of the proceedings before the EPO is English. The transitional period should terminate as soon as high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union are available. The quality of machine translations should be regularly and objectively evaluated by an independent expert committee established by the participating Member States in the framework of the European Patent Organisation and composed of representatives of the European Patent Office and users of the European patent system. It is considered that the machine translations into all official languages of the Union should be developed within 12 years** at the latest. Therefore, if the transitional period is not terminated by the Council on the basis of the proposal of the Commission, it should automatically lapse 12 years after this Regulation becomes applicable. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no impact on the Union budget. title COM(2011)0216 type Legislative proposal published celexid CELEX:52011PC0216:EN
activities/0/docs/1/title	changed	Old PE472.334 New SEC(2011)0483
activities/0/docs/1/type	changed	Old Committee draft report New Document attached to the procedure
activities/0/docs/1/url	deleted	http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE472.334
activities/0/type	changed	Old Committee draft report New Legislative proposal
activities/5/date	changed	Old 2012-07-04 New 2011-09-27
activities/5/docs	added	url http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE472.334 type Committee draft report title PE472.334
activities/5/type	changed	Old Vote scheduled New Committee draft report
activities/11	deleted	date 2012-07-03 body EP type Debate scheduled
activities/12	deleted	body EC date 2012-07-03 type Prev DG PRES commission DG url http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title Internal Market and Services Commissioner BARNIER Michel

2012-06-29

2012-06-14

2012-06-12

activities/0	deleted	date 2011-04-13 docs url http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=216 text PURPOSE: to implement enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. PROPOSED ACT: Council Regulation. BACKGROUND: the current patent system in the EU, in particular in terms of translation requirements, involves very high costs and complexity. The overall cost of validation of an average European patent reaches 12 500 EUR if validated only in 13 Member States and over 32 000 EUR if validated in the whole EU. It is estimated that the actual validation costs are around 193 million EUR per year in the EU. Despite of broad recognition of the competitive disadvantage European business faces in the absence of unitary patent protection, the Union has not been able to establish unitary patent protection. The Commission first proposed a Council Regulation on the Community patentin August 2000. On 30 June 2010 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation on the translation arrangements for the EU patent. It was confirmed at the Competitiveness Council meeting on 10 December 2010 that insurmountable difficulties existed, making a decision requiring unanimity impossible now and in the foreseeable future. 25 Member States then asked for recourse enhanced cooperation in the area of unitary patent protection (all Member States except Italy and Spain) in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection. The proposal for the authorising decision was adopted by the Council, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, on 10 March 2011. The present regulation implements the enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection as authorised by Council Decision 2011/167/EU.. IMPACT ASSESSMENT : the proposal is accompanied by an impact assessment which analyses the impacts of the following options: **Option 1(base-line scenario): the Commission takes no action; Option 2: the Commission continues to work with the other institutions towards an EU patent covering 27 Member States; Option 3: the Commission presents proposals for regulations implementing enhanced cooperation: Sub-option 3.1 - the Commission proposes translation arrangements applicable in the area of unitary patent protection that correspond to its proposal of 30 June 2010, or Sub-option 3.2 - the Commission proposes translation arrangements applicable in the area of unitary patent protection based on its proposal of 30 June 2010 and incorporating elements of a compromise proposal discussed by the Council. The analysis carried out in the impact assessment has demonstrated that option 3 with sub-option 3.2 is the preferred option. LEGAL BASIS: Article 118(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU provides for a specific legal basis to establish language arrangements applicable to European intellectual property rights providing uniform protection throughout the Union by means of regulations adopted by a special legislative procedure with the Council acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament. CONTENT: the proposal aims to implement the enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection authorised by Council Decision No 2011/167/EU with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. The main provisions are as follows : Translation arrangements for the European patent with unitary effect: the proposal provides that where the specification of a European patent with unitary effect has been published, no further translations are required. The EPC provides that the specification of a European patent is published in the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO) and includes a translation of the claims into the other two official languages of the EPO. Further translations are only requested in case of a dispute and during a transitional period as stated in the Regulation. A request for unitary effect is to be submitted in the language of the proceedings. Translation in the case of a dispute: in the case of a dispute concerning a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor provides a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which e ither the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. The patent proprietor would also be required to provide, at the request of the court competent in the territories of the participating Member States for disputes concerning the European patent with unitary effect, a full translation of the patent into the language of proceedings of that court. Such translations would be provided at the expense of the patent proprietor. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages the court hearing the dispute would take into consideration that, before having been provided with a translation in his own language, the alleged infringer may have acted in good faith and may have not known or had reasonable grounds to know that he was infringing the patent. Administration of a compensation scheme: the proposal provides that the administration of a compensation scheme for applicants filing patent applications in one of the official languages of the Union that is not an official language of the EPO is entrusted by the participating Member States to the European Patent Office. Transitional measures: the text provides for transitional measures to be applied during a certain period, before a system of high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union becomes available. Therefore, during a transitional period, a request for unitary effect as referred to in the Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection shall be accompanied by the following: (i) a full translation of the specification of such patent into English where the language of the proceedings before the EPO of the EPC is French or German; or (ii) a full translation of the specification of such patent into any official language of the participating Member States that is an official language of the Union where the language of the proceedings before the EPO is English. The transitional period should terminate as soon as high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union are available. The quality of machine translations should be regularly and objectively evaluated by an independent expert committee established by the participating Member States in the framework of the European Patent Organisation and composed of representatives of the European Patent Office and users of the European patent system. It is considered that the machine translations into all official languages of the Union should be developed within 12 years** at the latest. Therefore, if the transitional period is not terminated by the Council on the basis of the proposal of the Commission, it should automatically lapse 12 years after this Regulation becomes applicable. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no impact on the Union budget. celexid CELEX:52011PC0216:EN type Legislative proposal published title COM(2011)0216 type Document attached to the procedure title SEC(2011)0483 body EC type Legislative proposal commission DG url http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title Internal Market and Services Commissioner BARNIER Michel
activities/0/body	changed	Old EP New EC
activities/0/commission	added	DG url http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title Internal Market and Services Commissioner BARNIER Michel
activities/0/date	changed	Old 2011-09-27 New 2011-04-13
activities/0/docs/0	added	url http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=216 text PURPOSE: to implement enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. PROPOSED ACT: Council Regulation. BACKGROUND: the current patent system in the EU, in particular in terms of translation requirements, involves very high costs and complexity. The overall cost of validation of an average European patent reaches 12 500 EUR if validated only in 13 Member States and over 32 000 EUR if validated in the whole EU. It is estimated that the actual validation costs are around 193 million EUR per year in the EU. Despite of broad recognition of the competitive disadvantage European business faces in the absence of unitary patent protection, the Union has not been able to establish unitary patent protection. The Commission first proposed a Council Regulation on the Community patentin August 2000. On 30 June 2010 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation on the translation arrangements for the EU patent. It was confirmed at the Competitiveness Council meeting on 10 December 2010 that insurmountable difficulties existed, making a decision requiring unanimity impossible now and in the foreseeable future. 25 Member States then asked for recourse enhanced cooperation in the area of unitary patent protection (all Member States except Italy and Spain) in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection. The proposal for the authorising decision was adopted by the Council, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, on 10 March 2011. The present regulation implements the enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection as authorised by Council Decision 2011/167/EU.. IMPACT ASSESSMENT : the proposal is accompanied by an impact assessment which analyses the impacts of the following options: **Option 1(base-line scenario): the Commission takes no action; Option 2: the Commission continues to work with the other institutions towards an EU patent covering 27 Member States; Option 3: the Commission presents proposals for regulations implementing enhanced cooperation: Sub-option 3.1 - the Commission proposes translation arrangements applicable in the area of unitary patent protection that correspond to its proposal of 30 June 2010, or Sub-option 3.2 - the Commission proposes translation arrangements applicable in the area of unitary patent protection based on its proposal of 30 June 2010 and incorporating elements of a compromise proposal discussed by the Council. The analysis carried out in the impact assessment has demonstrated that option 3 with sub-option 3.2 is the preferred option. LEGAL BASIS: Article 118(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU provides for a specific legal basis to establish language arrangements applicable to European intellectual property rights providing uniform protection throughout the Union by means of regulations adopted by a special legislative procedure with the Council acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament. CONTENT: the proposal aims to implement the enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection authorised by Council Decision No 2011/167/EU with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. The main provisions are as follows : Translation arrangements for the European patent with unitary effect: the proposal provides that where the specification of a European patent with unitary effect has been published, no further translations are required. The EPC provides that the specification of a European patent is published in the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO) and includes a translation of the claims into the other two official languages of the EPO. Further translations are only requested in case of a dispute and during a transitional period as stated in the Regulation. A request for unitary effect is to be submitted in the language of the proceedings. Translation in the case of a dispute: in the case of a dispute concerning a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor provides a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which e ither the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. The patent proprietor would also be required to provide, at the request of the court competent in the territories of the participating Member States for disputes concerning the European patent with unitary effect, a full translation of the patent into the language of proceedings of that court. Such translations would be provided at the expense of the patent proprietor. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages the court hearing the dispute would take into consideration that, before having been provided with a translation in his own language, the alleged infringer may have acted in good faith and may have not known or had reasonable grounds to know that he was infringing the patent. Administration of a compensation scheme: the proposal provides that the administration of a compensation scheme for applicants filing patent applications in one of the official languages of the Union that is not an official language of the EPO is entrusted by the participating Member States to the European Patent Office. Transitional measures: the text provides for transitional measures to be applied during a certain period, before a system of high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union becomes available. Therefore, during a transitional period, a request for unitary effect as referred to in the Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection shall be accompanied by the following: (i) a full translation of the specification of such patent into English where the language of the proceedings before the EPO of the EPC is French or German; or (ii) a full translation of the specification of such patent into any official language of the participating Member States that is an official language of the Union where the language of the proceedings before the EPO is English. The transitional period should terminate as soon as high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union are available. The quality of machine translations should be regularly and objectively evaluated by an independent expert committee established by the participating Member States in the framework of the European Patent Organisation and composed of representatives of the European Patent Office and users of the European patent system. It is considered that the machine translations into all official languages of the Union should be developed within 12 years** at the latest. Therefore, if the transitional period is not terminated by the Council on the basis of the proposal of the Commission, it should automatically lapse 12 years after this Regulation becomes applicable. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no impact on the Union budget. celexid CELEX:52011PC0216:EN type Legislative proposal published title COM(2011)0216
activities/0/docs/1/title	changed	Old PE472.334 New SEC(2011)0483
activities/0/docs/1/type	changed	Old Committee draft report New Document attached to the procedure
activities/0/docs/1/url	deleted	http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE472.334
activities/0/type	changed	Old Committee draft report New Legislative proposal
activities/5/date	changed	Old 2012-06-13 New 2011-09-27
activities/5/docs	added	url http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE472.334 type Committee draft report title PE472.334
activities/5/type	changed	Old EP 1R Plenary New Committee draft report
activities/12	deleted	body EC date 2012-06-13 type Prev DG PRES commission DG url http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title Internal Market and Services Commissioner BARNIER Michel

2012-06-08

2012-06-01

2012-05-31

2012-05-24

2012-05-22

2012-05-06

2012-04-23

2012-04-14

2012-04-12

2012-04-10

2012-04-09

2012-04-05

2012-04-04

2012-04-02

2012-04-01

2012-03-29

2012-03-27

2012-03-23

2012-03-22

2012-03-14

2012-03-12

2012-03-08

2012-03-07

2012-03-03

2012-03-02

activities/0/docs/0/url	changed	Old http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=0216 New http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=216
activities/0/docs/1	added	type Document attached to the procedure title SEC(2011)0483
activities/8/docs/0	added	url http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-2&language=EN text The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted, in the framework of a special legislative procedure, the report drafted by Raffaele BALDASSARRE (EPP, IT) on the for a Council regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. It recommends that the European Parliament amend the Commission proposal as follows: Purpose: the amendments stipulate that: the Regulation regulates the translation arrangements applicable to European patents to the extent that they have unitary effect; it is without prejudice to the rules governing the languages of the institutions of the Union established in accordance with Article 342 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to Council Regulation 1/1958; it is based on the linguistic regime of the European Patent Office and should not be regarded as creating a specific linguistic regime for the Union, or as creating a precedent for a limited language regime in any future legal instrument of the Union. Translation arrangements for the European patent with unitary effect: once available, the machine translations of patent applications and specifications into all languages of the Union shall be made available online and free of charge on publication of the patent application and of the granted patent. After the end of the transitional period referred to in the Regulation, the participating Member States shall, pursuant to Article 143 of the EPC, give the European Patent Office the task of publishing an additional full translation of the specification into English, if such additional translation has been provided voluntarily by the applicant. Such translation shall not be carried out by automated means. Disputes: in the case of a dispute relating to a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor shall provide at the request and the choice of an alleged infringer, a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which either the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. Such translation shall not be carried out by automated means. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages, the court hearing the dispute shall take into consideration whether, especially if it is a small or medium-sized enterprise, a natural person, a non-profit organisation, a university or a public research organisation, the alleged infringer has acted without knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that he was infringing the patent. Compensation scheme: the compensation scheme referred to in the Regulation shall be funded through the fees referred to in Regulation on substantive provisions and shall be available only for small and medium-sized enterprises, natural persons, non profit organisations, universities and public research organisations having their residence or principal place of business within a Member State of the Union. The compensation scheme shall ensure full reimbursement of the translation costs up to a ceiling set in such a way as to reflect the average market price for translations and to avoid abuse. Entry into force: the Regulation shall apply from 1 January 2014 or from the date of entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, whichever is the later. type Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title A7-0002/2012
activities/8/docs/0	deleted	url http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-0002&language=EN type Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title A7-0002/2012
links/European Commission	deleted	url http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/liste_resultats.cfm?CL=en&ReqId=0&DocType=CNS&DocYear=2011&DocNum=0094 title PreLex

2012-02-29

2012-02-28

2012-02-25

2012-02-24

2012-02-23

2012-02-22

2012-02-21

2012-02-20

2012-02-17

2012-02-15

2012-02-12

activities/3	added	date 2011-06-07 body EP type Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/3	deleted	date 2011-06-07 body EP type Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/7	added	date 2011-12-20 body EP type Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/7	deleted	date 2011-12-20 body EP type Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/8/committees/0	added	body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/8/committees/0	deleted	body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
committees/0	added	body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
committees/0	deleted	body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele

2012-02-11

activities/3	added	date 2011-06-07 body EP type Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/3	deleted	date 2011-06-07 body EP type Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/7	added	date 2011-12-20 body EP type Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/7	deleted	date 2011-12-20 body EP type Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/8/committees/0	added	body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/8/committees/0	deleted	body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
committees/0	added	body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
committees/0	deleted	body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele

2012-02-10

activities/0/docs/0/url	changed	Old http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=0216&model=guicheti New http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=0216
activities/3	added	date 2011-06-07 body EP type Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/3	deleted	date 2011-06-07 body EP type Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/7	added	date 2011-12-20 body EP type Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/7	deleted	date 2011-12-20 body EP type Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/8/committees/0	added	body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/8/committees/0	deleted	body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
activities/9	deleted	date 2012-02-14 body EP type Debate scheduled
committees/0	added	body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
committees/0	deleted	body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele

2012-02-09

activities	added	date 2011-04-13 docs url http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=0216&model=guicheti text PURPOSE: to implement enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. PROPOSED ACT: Council Regulation. BACKGROUND: the current patent system in the EU, in particular in terms of translation requirements, involves very high costs and complexity. The overall cost of validation of an average European patent reaches 12 500 EUR if validated only in 13 Member States and over 32 000 EUR if validated in the whole EU. It is estimated that the actual validation costs are around 193 million EUR per year in the EU. Despite of broad recognition of the competitive disadvantage European business faces in the absence of unitary patent protection, the Union has not been able to establish unitary patent protection. The Commission first proposed a Council Regulation on the Community patentin August 2000. On 30 June 2010 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation on the translation arrangements for the EU patent. It was confirmed at the Competitiveness Council meeting on 10 December 2010 that insurmountable difficulties existed, making a decision requiring unanimity impossible now and in the foreseeable future. 25 Member States then asked for recourse enhanced cooperation in the area of unitary patent protection (all Member States except Italy and Spain) in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection. The proposal for the authorising decision was adopted by the Council, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, on 10 March 2011. The present regulation implements the enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection as authorised by Council Decision 2011/167/EU.. IMPACT ASSESSMENT : the proposal is accompanied by an impact assessment which analyses the impacts of the following options: **Option 1(base-line scenario): the Commission takes no action; Option 2: the Commission continues to work with the other institutions towards an EU patent covering 27 Member States; Option 3: the Commission presents proposals for regulations implementing enhanced cooperation: Sub-option 3.1 - the Commission proposes translation arrangements applicable in the area of unitary patent protection that correspond to its proposal of 30 June 2010, or Sub-option 3.2 - the Commission proposes translation arrangements applicable in the area of unitary patent protection based on its proposal of 30 June 2010 and incorporating elements of a compromise proposal discussed by the Council. The analysis carried out in the impact assessment has demonstrated that option 3 with sub-option 3.2 is the preferred option. LEGAL BASIS: Article 118(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU provides for a specific legal basis to establish language arrangements applicable to European intellectual property rights providing uniform protection throughout the Union by means of regulations adopted by a special legislative procedure with the Council acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament. CONTENT: the proposal aims to implement the enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection authorised by Council Decision No 2011/167/EU with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. The main provisions are as follows : Translation arrangements for the European patent with unitary effect: the proposal provides that where the specification of a European patent with unitary effect has been published, no further translations are required. The EPC provides that the specification of a European patent is published in the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO) and includes a translation of the claims into the other two official languages of the EPO. Further translations are only requested in case of a dispute and during a transitional period as stated in the Regulation. A request for unitary effect is to be submitted in the language of the proceedings. Translation in the case of a dispute: in the case of a dispute concerning a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor provides a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which e ither the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. The patent proprietor would also be required to provide, at the request of the court competent in the territories of the participating Member States for disputes concerning the European patent with unitary effect, a full translation of the patent into the language of proceedings of that court. Such translations would be provided at the expense of the patent proprietor. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages the court hearing the dispute would take into consideration that, before having been provided with a translation in his own language, the alleged infringer may have acted in good faith and may have not known or had reasonable grounds to know that he was infringing the patent. Administration of a compensation scheme: the proposal provides that the administration of a compensation scheme for applicants filing patent applications in one of the official languages of the Union that is not an official language of the EPO is entrusted by the participating Member States to the European Patent Office. Transitional measures: the text provides for transitional measures to be applied during a certain period, before a system of high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union becomes available. Therefore, during a transitional period, a request for unitary effect as referred to in the Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection shall be accompanied by the following: (i) a full translation of the specification of such patent into English where the language of the proceedings before the EPO of the EPC is French or German; or (ii) a full translation of the specification of such patent into any official language of the participating Member States that is an official language of the Union where the language of the proceedings before the EPO is English. The transitional period should terminate as soon as high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union are available. The quality of machine translations should be regularly and objectively evaluated by an independent expert committee established by the participating Member States in the framework of the European Patent Organisation and composed of representatives of the European Patent Office and users of the European patent system. It is considered that the machine translations into all official languages of the Union should be developed within 12 years at the latest. Therefore, if the transitional period is not terminated by the Council on the basis of the proposal of the Commission, it should automatically lapse 12 years after this Regulation becomes applicable. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no impact on the Union budget. celexid CELEX:52011PC0216:EN type Legislative proposal published title COM(2011)0216 body EC type Legislative proposal commission DG Internal Market and Services Commissioner BARNIER Michel body CSL meeting_id 3094 text The Council exchanged views at a public session on the creation of unitary patent protection. The outcome of the debate provides a political orientation for the implementation of enhanced cooperation among 25 Member States towards the creation of a unitary patent title. It paves the way for further work with a view to reaching a general approach at the extraordinary Competitiveness Council meeting devoted to unitary patent protection in Luxembourg on 27 June 2011. The debate was conducted on the basis of a Presidency compromise text, following the two proposals submitted by the Commission on 13 April with provisions to implement enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection: the first proposal prescribes how patent holders can obtain European patents with unitary effect that ensures uniform protection for their invention; the second proposal contains the translation arrangements. council Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) date 2011-05-30 type Council Meeting body EP date 2011-05-30 type EP officialisation date 2011-06-07 body EP type Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele body CSL meeting_id extr text During a public session, the Council unanimously agreed on general approaches** on two draft regulations implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of unitary patent protection. The first proposal prescribes how patent holders can obtain European patents with unitary effect that ensures uniform protection for their invention and the second one contains the translation arrangements. The Council authorised the launch of enhanced cooperation in the field of the creation of unitary patent protection on 10 March after having received the European Parliament's consent to the use of this procedure on 15 February. The enhanced cooperation is a procedure enshrined in the EU treaty that allows a group of countries to adopt new common rules when EU-wide agreement cannot be reached within a reasonable period of time. The use of enhanced cooperation was requested by 25 out of 27 EU Member States with the aim of establishing a unitary patent that will be valid across the territory of the participating Member States. All Member States except Italy and Spain were in favour of the use of enhanced cooperation. The main obstacle to the creation of a unitary patent valid throughout the EU (i.e. in all 27 Member States) is the lack of unanimity on the number of languages in which the future unitary patent will be valid, hence the recourse to enhanced cooperation. Enhanced cooperation is open to non-participating countries, and access to the unitary patent on the territory of participating Member States will also be available to businesses from non-participating Member States. council Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) date 2011-06-27 type Council Meeting date 2011-09-27 docs url http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE472.334 type Committee draft report title PE472.334 body EP type Committee draft report body EP date 2011-10-26 type Deadline Amendments date 2011-12-20 body EP type Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele date 2012-01-09 docs url http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-0002&language=EN type Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title A7-0002/2012 body EP committees body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele type Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading date 2012-02-14 body EP type Debate scheduled date 2012-03-12 body EP type Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading body EC date 2012-03-12 type Prev DG PRES commission DG Internal Market and Services Commissioner BARNIER Michel
committees	added	body EP shadows group S&D name BERLINGUER Luigi group ALDE name THEIN Alexandra group Verts/ALE name ENGSTRÖM Christian group ECR name KARIM Sajjad responsible True committee JURI date 2011-04-11 committee_full Legal Affairs rapporteur group EPP name BALDASSARRE Raffaele
links	added	National parliaments url http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/dossier.do?code=CNS&year=2011&number=0094&appLng=EN title IPEX European Commission url http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/liste_resultats.cfm?CL=en&ReqId=0&DocType=CNS&DocYear=2011&DocNum=0094 title PreLex
other	added	body EC dg Internal Market and Services commissioner BARNIER Michel
procedure	added	dossier_of_the_committee JURI/7/05847 reference 2011/0094(CNS) subtype Legislation legal_basis Treaty on the Functioning of the EU TFEU 118 -a2 stage_reached Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage instrument Regulation title Enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection: implementation; translation arrangements type CNS - Consultation procedure subject 3.50.16 Industrial property, European patent, Community patent, design and pattern

activities/10/date	changed	Old 2012-06-11 New 2012-06-13
activities/11/date	changed	Old 2012-06-11 New 2012-06-13

Email subscription

Parltrack

2011/0094(CNS)

Activites

Documents

Votes

A7-0002/2012 - Raffaele Baldassarre - Am 16rev

A7-0002/2012 - Raffaele Baldassarre - Résolution législative

A7-0002/2012 - Raffaele Baldassarre - Legislative resolution

History

	JURI
Lead Rapporteur	BALDASSARRE Raffaele (EPP)
Opinion Rapporteur(s)

activities/12	added	date 2012-12-17 body CSL type Council Meeting council Environment meeting_id 3211
activities/13	added	date 2012-12-17 body EP type End of procedure in Parliament
activities/14	added	date 2012-12-17 body EP/CSL type Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
procedure/stage_reached	changed	Old Awaiting final decision New Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal

activities/10	added	date 2012-12-10 body CSL type Council Meeting council Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) meeting_id 3208
activities/11/docs	added	url http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-475 type Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title T7-0475/2012
activities/11/type	changed	Old Debate scheduled New Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
procedure/stage_reached	changed	Old Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage New Awaiting final decision

activities/6/docs	added	url http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE475.788 type Amendments tabled in committee title PE475.788
activities/6/type	changed	Old Deadline Amendments New Amendments tabled in committee

activities/0/docs/0/url	added	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=216
activities/0/docs/1	added	type Document attached to the procedure title SEC(2011)0483
activities/5/docs/0/url	added	http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE472.334
activities/8/docs/0/url	added	http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-2&language=EN

activities/0/commission/0	added	DG url http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title Internal Market and Services Commissioner BARNIER Michel
activities/0/commission/0	deleted	DG Internal Market and Services Commissioner BARNIER Michel
activities/10	added	body EC date 2012-03-12 type Prev DG PRES commission DG url http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title Internal Market and Services Commissioner BARNIER Michel
activities/10	deleted	body EC date 2012-03-12 type Prev DG PRES commission DG Internal Market and Services Commissioner BARNIER Michel
other/0	added	body EC dg url http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title Internal Market and Services commissioner BARNIER Michel
other/0	deleted	body EC dg Internal Market and Services commissioner BARNIER Michel

activities/0/docs/1	deleted	url http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2011/0482/COM_SEC(2011)0482_EN.pdf type Document attached to the procedure title SEC(2011)0482
activities/0/docs/2	deleted	url http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2011/0483/COM_SEC(2011)0483_EN.pdf type Document attached to the procedure title SEC(2011)0483
activities/9	added	body EP date 2012-03-12 type EP 1R Plenary
activities/9	deleted	date 2012-03-12 body EP type Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading