BR-GT-II-Documents : art. 1871 /en

Metadata

• Display Name : BR GT II 18 e 71
• Item Number : 1871
• Folder / Language : English
• Language Tag : #English
• Original PDF : BR-GT-II-Documents/English/BR-GT II-Documents 000-025/BR-GT II-Documents 018 e 71/BR GT II 18 e 71.pdf

Contenu

[p.1]

Europäisches Patentamt European Patent Office Office européen des brevets

Travaux Préparatoires EPC 1973

Comment:

The collection represents purely an internal research tool for the purpose of Directorate Patent Law of the European Patent Office. No guarantee can be given for its completeness or correctness.

The documents produced before 1969 cannot be provided in English as this was not an official language in the period before that date. These documents therefore are provided in French and German.

[p.2]

1	201711	150
2	201712	150
3	201713	150
4	201714	150
5	201715	150
6	201716	150
7	201717	150
8	201718	150
9	201719	150
10	2017110	150
11	2017111	150
12	2017112	150
13	2017113	150
14	2017114	150
15	2017115	150
16	2017116	150
17	2017117	150
18	2017118	150
19	2017119	150
20	2017120	150
21	2017121	150
22	2017122	150
23	2017123	150
24	2017124	150
25	2017125	150
26	2017126	150
27	2017127	150
28	2017128	150
29	2017129	150
30	2017130	150
31	2017131	150
32	2017132	150
33	2017133	150
34	2017134	150
35	2017135	150
36	2017136	150
37	2017137	150
38	2017138	150
39	2017139	150
40	2017140	150
41	2017141	150
42	2017142	150
43	2017143	150
44	2017144	150
45	2017145	150
46	2017146	150
47	2017147	150
48	2017148	150
49	2017149	150
50	2017150	150
51	2017151	150
52	2017152	150
53	2017153	150
54	2017154	150
55	2017155	150
56	2017156	150
57	2017157	150
58	2017158	150
59	2017159	150
60	2017160	150
61	2017161	150
62	2017162	150
63	2017163	150
64	2017164	150
65	2017165	150
66	2017166	150
67	2017167	150
68	2017168	150
69	2017169	150
70	2017170	150
71	2017171	150
72	2017172	150
73	2017173	150
74	2017174	150
75	2017175	150
76	2017176	150
77	2017177	150
78	2017178	150
79	2017179	150
80	2017180	150
81	2017181	150
82	2017182	150
83	2017183	150
84	2017184	150
85	2017185	150
86	2017186	150
87	2017187	150
88	2017188	150
89	2017189	150
90	2017190	150
91	2017191	150
92	2017192	150
93	2017193	150
94	2017194	150
95	2017195	150
96	2017196	150
97	2017197	150
98	2017198	150
99	2017199	150
100	20171100	150

[p.3]

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 4th October 1971 BR/GT II/18/71

- Secretariat -

COVER NOTE

The United Kingdom delegation, under cover of a letter dated 23 September 1971, sent a note to the Secretariat concerning the draft Protocol on privileges and immunities. This note which is annexed hereto, has been distributed for discussion at the next meeting of Working Party II, to be held from 29 November to 3 December 1971.

BR/GT II/18 e/71 nan/PB/prk

[p.4]

$$\therefore m = \frac{3}{11}$$

[p.5]

ANNEX

ON THE DRAFT PROTOCOL

The United Kingdom delegation welcomes the opportunity to participate in the work of Working Party II to bring the provisions of the draft Protocol more into line with the decision of the Conference in April that "the European Patent Office should have the same basic privileges and immunities as those generally accepted for international organisations" (para 150 of the minutes BR/125/71).

Article 35 of the draft Convention indicates that the Protocol is to define the immunities and privileges which are necessary for the European Patent Office and its staff to carry out their tasks. We believe that the States negotiating the present Convention accept the Explanatory Report of the Committee on Legal Co-operation annexed to Resolution (69)29, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 26 September 1969. In our view, therefore, the intention must be to take into account the several considerations (particularly conclusions 2 and 3) set out in this Report when giving effect to the principle of necessity enunciated in Article 35. Accordingly, we interpret the decision of the Conference as meaning that the European Patent Office is to have only these privileges and immunities accorded to strictly comparable international organisations which are necessary to enable the Office and its staff to exercise their functions.

On this basis, the United Kingdom delegation wishes to make the following comments on the draft Protocol:

BR/GT II/18 e/71 cs

.../...

[p.6]

1. 2017，《》。

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

1. 201711201811（）4.56/，，-0.97%。

[Non-Text]

1. 201711201811（）4.56/，，-0.97%。

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

1. 201711201811（）4.56/，，-0.97%。

[Non-Text]

1. 201711201811（）4.56/，，-0.97%。

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[Non-Text]

[p.7]

- 2 -

1. We doubt whether Article 1 is necessary. As we see it, there is nothing political or secret in the work of the European Patent Office which can be said to require the inviolability of its buildings and premises. It also appears difficult to justify excluding the police and other authorities, since the general public is to have access to the Office.

2. As noted by the Conference (para 153 of the minutes) there is at present a conflict between Article 3, 22 and 23 of the draft Protocol and Article 40 of the draft Convention which needs to be removed. In our opinion Article 3, paragraph 1, goes too far in that it grants legal immunity with only two real exceptions. As we see it, the European Patent Office should be subject to control by the Courts in respect of breaches in any contract it enters into or in respect of other wrongful acts which have no connection with its tasks (eg damage resulting to persons from negligent maintenance of the EPO building). Furthermore, we do not think that the withholding of immunity in such cases would in any case interfere with the normal functioning of the Office in carrying out the task defined in Article 4 of the Convention. On the other hand, we would think it is probably necessary for the Office to be immune in respect of acts done in the exercise of its function of granting patents. If Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Protocol were limited in this way, Article 22 could also be deleted and Article 40 of the Convention could then be so worded as to make it applicable to those cases in which the European Patent Office either has no immunity or has waived its immunity.

BR/GT II/18 e/71 (Annex) cs

.../...

[p.8]

- 3 -

3. We think that the representatives of a State should not, in respect of immunity, be treated differently from the President of the Office, its staff and experts. Accordingly we suggest the addition to Article 12(1)(b) of the following:

'The immunity shall not apply, however, in the case of a motor traffic offence committed by a representative, nor in the case of damage caused by a motor vehicle belonging to or driven by him'.

4. We continue to have doubts as to the justification for the fiscal and other financial privileges which are the subject of Articles 4-7, 9, 12(1)(g), 13, 14(e) and (g) and 15(c) of the draft Protocol and are apparently to be included in Article 16.

The European Patent Office will not be a body rendering services for Governments by exercising political or economic functions; on the contrary, it will be dealing with private persons and firms seeking monopolies and will be performing a purely licensing role. Moreover, once the steady state period has been reached, the Office will not be supported financially by Governments; its revenue will derive from fees paid by applicants and patentees and this may well exceed the operational costs. In these circumstances, we find it difficult to equate the Office with the traditional kind of intergovernmental organisation to which it is customary to grant financial privileges. As accepted by the European Committee on Legal Co-operation, the main reason for according such privileges is to avoid one State reaping a benefit from the contributions made to the organisation

BR/GT II/18 e/71 (Annex) cs

.../...

[p.9]

- 4 -

by other States. However, this will not apply to the European Patent Office. The grant of financial privileges to the Office and its staff would have the effect of subsidising applicants and patentees - many of them from countries outside Europe - out of taxpayers money, and it is of importance that such a grant can properly be justified to public opinion.

These are the principal reasons for our doubts concerning the fiscal provisions mentioned above and we would welcome a discussion of these matters.

5. As regards Article 29, we have some doubt whether two States can be regarded as sufficient to bring the Protocol into force. In any event, we feel that one of the States should be the State where the Office is located.

6. Finally, we may mention that we have a few other points, mainly of a drafting nature. These will be presented orally to the Working-Party.

BR/GT II/18 e/71 (Annex) cs

[p.10]

1