Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-05-Speech-3-258"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000705.8.3-258"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to reply to the remarks that have just been made. May I start by thanking Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi for the broad support that she has given the decision by the Commission to promote the Community patent. As far as Mrs Kauppi is concerned, may I say that the reason that the European Patent Office in Munich uses not just one but a number of experts is that it wants to ensure that the quality of the patent which is granted by the European Patent Office is of the highest quality. Without wishing to be unduly eurocentric, patents granted in other parts of the world, in particular one part which is across the water, if I may put it that way, are not of the same quality as the patents granted by the European Patent Office in Munich. So in this case I am afraid that we must continue to place security and quality above purely financial considerations. That is the reason why the European Patent Office uses more than one expert.
On the first question, the Commission is aware of the concerns that have been raised in France and elsewhere about the directive and in particular about possible inconsistencies between two paragraphs of Article 5 of the directive. The President of France, Mr Jacques Chirac, has written to President Prodi on this question. May I stress that in my opinion there is no contradiction between the first two paragraphs of that article, the wording of which I believe relies heavily on suggestions made by this Parliament. The first paragraph provides that the human body at various stages of its formation and development and the simple discovery of one of its elements, including the sequence or partial sequence of a gene, cannot constitute patentable inventions. This paragraph is clearly in line with the basic principle that discoveries are not patentable.
However the second paragraph of Article 5 states that an element isolated from the human body or otherwise produced by means of a technical process, including the sequence or the partial sequence of a gene, may constitute a patentable invention, even if the structure of that element is identical to that of a natural element. Here the invention arises from the isolation of a particular gene from its natural surroundings or by its production by means of a technical process.
Of course to be patentable, that invention would still need to satisfy the criteria of novelty, inventiveness and industrial applicability. In respect of this last requirement, industrial applicability, the directive makes it clear that the industrial application of the gene must be specified in the patent application. A note setting out the Commission's position on this issue has been placed on our website.
Needless to say the Commission will reply to President Chirac's letter and take a position on the issues he has raised. Our proposal on a Community patent, which is the subject of the discussion this afternoon, does not affect the existing regime, which is governed by the directive of 1998. That directive is due to be implemented by the end of this month and it should also bind the European Patent Office."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples