Unitary Patent JURI 20121126

On Monday November 26th, 2012, the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) of the European Parliament holds an exchange of views in the presence of the legal service of the European Parliament. This is an opportunity for MEPs to question the legality of the last compromise proposed by Cyprus Presidency of the Council, as well as long-standing legal flaws in the Commission's initial proposal.

Watch the Meeting

The meeting is streamed form the European Parliament's website: see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20121126-1500-COMMITTEE-JURI&vodtype=Live

Contact JURI Members

You can contact, free of charge, Members of JURI Committee using our tool: http://call.unitary-patent.eu/campaign/call2/unitary-patent-juri-2012

You can propose them to ask for the following questions:

• How can the Cyprus compromise be compliant with Article 118.1 TFEU while it does not provide for a full definition of the effects of the unitary patent?

• How can the Cyprus compromise be compliant with Article 118.1 TFEU while it merely rely to harmonisation (which should be based on Art. 114 TFEU) for the unitary patent to provides uniform protection?

• How can the Cyprus compromise be compliant with Article 118.1 TFEU while the uniform protection provided by unitary patents are not defined in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure of the European Union, but rather by national laws harmonised by an international agreement (the agreement on a Unified Patent Court, or UPC)?

• How can the Cyprus compromise be compliant with Article 118.1 TFEU while any revision of measures defining the uniform protection provided by unitary patents are to be taken according to Art. 58d UPC, with one vote by Contracting Member State and a right of veto (Art. 58d (3)), without the EU legislator, and in particular the European Parliament, having any say?

• Why in this regulation everything is made to make believe that the unitary patent is not a genuine EU patent?

• Why trying to escape defining its effects: infringing acts and exceptions, with this Cyprus compromise?

• Why not having examined in trilogue the explicit statement of the autonomous character of the unitary patent and its EU nature, while such things have been unanimously accepted by the Council in its conclusion under Swedish presidency in 2009?

• In the end, do the proponents of the CY compromise and of the trilogue agreement really want a true EU single patent?

Contactez les membres JURI

Vous pouvez contacter, gratuitement, les membres du comité JURI en utilisant notre outil: http://call.unitary-patent.eu/campaign/call2/unitary-patent-juri-2012

Vous pouvez leur proposer de poser les questions suivantes:

• Comment est ce que le compromis de Chypre peut être conforme à l'article 11.1 TFEU alors qu'il ne fournit pas une définition complète quant aux effets du brevet unitaire?