Proposition 53K0405

Projet de loi d'exécution du Traité sur le droit des brevets d'invention et de l'Acte portant révision de la Convention sur la délivrance de brevets européens, et portant modification de diverses dispositions en matière de brevets d'invention.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Oct. 15, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European patent intellectual property international agreement patent patent law invention

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 16, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to bring this assembly to the attention of what important piece of legislation is ahead.

It is not without importance that with this piece of legislation we conform the Belgian legislation to the WIPO Convention. WIPO stands for World Intellectual Property Organization. Not only in accordance with this, but also in accordance with the updating of the EU Patent Treaty, we are entering an era of harmonisation, which fully fits within the framework of the important efforts made by Belgium during the European Presidency to ensure that we can be in the Avondland in Europe a region where patents can be filed smoothly and where innovation and development can see the light of day, without being stuck in an endless administrative burden.

It is not only a formal simplification, but it will also enable electronic submission and processing. For the first time since 1984, with the harmonisation and simplification that is now being carried out, we can ⁇ a breakthrough of that magnitude. Therefore, I hope that you will massively support this bill with us.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about this important bill.

I would like to return to the discussion we had, Mr. Minister, on how our intellectual property policy can contribute to the development of green technologies, whether it is energy from waste, water treatment. The Ecolo-Groen group! has submitted three amendments aimed at introducing in our law a procedure for accelerated processing of these files in order to obtain a patent in a faster manner for innovations in the environmental protection sector.

These amendments were rejected. You motivated your objections with a procedure that is not very long in Belgium (average 18 months) and which is quite simple. He said the amendments were not relevant. I recalled that in some countries, notably in the United States, in Great Britain, – the reflection is even ongoing within the European Union –, fast-track procedures (accelerated procedures) for obtaining patents for environmental technologies were implemented. I cited the example of Britain in particular, where the deadline for obtaining a patent is reduced to nine months.

Therefore, I would like to return to the plenary on this element which we consider important. If one agrees that the intellectual property policy has an influence on the dissemination of innovations, their development, their placing on the market and their making available to users, one must also admit that this is ⁇ the case for environmental technologies.

I would therefore like to encourage the Office of Intellectual Property, the administration and you, Mr. Minister, to continue their efforts so that, even outside the framework that will be voted today, concrete fast track experiments for environmental technologies can be considered. Let us not be the last to enter this path that has been taken by several countries. I would like the Office of Intellectual Property to evaluate this ongoing procedure in other countries to, if necessary, consider it and implement it in Belgium.

In the light of the discussion we have held on the draft law on the procedure for the submission of European patent applications, it is, in my opinion, necessary to explain our discussion and our amendment.

This is a very important issue. We are talking about the patent or patent that is an important tool for many companies, either to record which patent applications they have realized or to focus their innovation efforts on the basis of existing patents.

In our country, only 10 % of exports are based on strong patents, while for other European countries that is about 20 %. The value of an innovative enterprise is thus largely determined by its patent rights. If a company would deliver an incorrectly targeted effort, it could result in increased costs and loss of time. We must therefore ensure that the threshold for obtaining and studying a patent for SMEs is as low as possible.

The European patent would in any case be available in English, German and French if an agreement is reached within the framework of enhanced cooperation in Europe. Thus, that arrangement may provide soil for the French-speaking entrepreneurs in Belgium. To ensure smooth access to the European database, it is necessary that more than 70 million European patent documents can also be consulted in Dutch. The Flemish SMEs, colleagues, should not remain in the cold.

The N-VA therefore supports the bill, but has submitted an important amendment in the committee, which provides for a translation application into Dutch. I quote briefly from our amendment: “The Intellectual Property Office provides a number of technological services that enable the automatic translation of patent information and the granted European patents should be able to be consulted under equal conditions – a very important provision – in all national languages.”

Therefore, our amendment addresses two aspects.

First, that all national languages, including Dutch, are registered and, secondly, that the digital accessibility is also increased.

For Flemish SMEs it is important that the Dutch translation module is linked to the European database Espace.net. This Dutch translation module is necessary in order for our SMEs to maintain their position in the international market. Not only the language, but also the accessibility of this European database is emphasized in our amendment.

The draft law submitted by the government on 15 October does not, in our view, adequately take this into account. The N-VA considers that the service of the Intellectual Property Service should be further expanded, equipped with an online translation application and that is also provided in our amendment.

Colleagues, strange, but the amendment was eventually approved, Flamings versus French speakers, who abstained. Our group is pleased that the amendment and the motivation could count on the approval of all Flemish parties. However, we regret the reaction of the French-speaking colleagues. Just and only because the amendment was submitted by the N-VA, this has led to suspicion and sometimes even slight paranoia. Instead of assessing the amendment on its merits and recognizing the importance of all national languages in this bill, the French-speaking parties abstained. For Dutch-speaking entrepreneurs, this aid was not granted. It is apparently good to join the Bartophobia or N-VA phobia and shoot the author, instead of reading the content.

The patent law has been the subject of discussions in the Committee on Business for years.

The Flemish Belang has always defended respect for the language laws and the use of Dutch, both in the patent application, Mr. the Minister, and in the patent itself. You will surely remember that. I have asked several verbal questions.

Dear colleagues, the Flemish Interest has not opposed this bill. Following this bill, I have intervened in the Committee on Business, in particular with regard to the question of establishing the date of the patent application. You remember that. Submission of the description of whether a part of the patent application could be made in any possible language in your bill, if there would be a translation at the expense of the patent applicant.

The file is only complete when the translation has occurred. This was stated in the business committee. I repeat your words: “The file will only be handled after translation. The full patent application must be translated. You have also stated: “After a certain period of time, the application must be translated into one of the national languages in order to comply with the laws on the use of languages in administrative matters.”

Mr. Minister, these were important guarantees for us, which were then supplemented by the amendment of the N-VA concerning the automatic translation machine of the European Commission, an amendment that all Flemish parties have backed.

It is therefore very regrettable, and it signals the strength of the new majority that is coming, that the French-speaking parties have opposed this amendment. You were there, Mr. Minister. You regretted that, along with us.

Thank you for the various interventions.

I will not refer to all that has been said in the committee, but I will briefly refer to the amendment. The government has backed the amendment. The amendment clearly states that it is a European system that has been launched within our European Presidency, in particular the European Patent Office that will provide automatic translation, including into Dutch. It is important that this happens because in this way we can also get support from many Member States in the single EU patent file.

You know that with our Presidency we have achieved a very important breakthrough in this dossier. Today, 12 countries expressly support the enhanced cooperation. This will be discussed in the European Parliament after the New Year and then again in the European Council. I think we will eventually get a European patent. To that patent is therefore linked the automatic translation, also into Dutch.

In that sense, I believe that the amendment is correct and that it is supported by the entire government, in all its layers.