
Logic Patents > Reviews > EuroParl 03-09-24 > Amendments > JURI > Reject > Harmonisation
Reject	Harmonisation	TRIPs	Patent Eulogy	Copyright	Not Separate Law	Regional Competitiveness

The Need for Harmonisation

Europe's substantive patent law is already unified. But in order to justify an intervention of the EU, it seems necessary to argue that there are trade conflicts arising from differences between legal system. Thus there is not much to be said about the related recitals, except for the usual work of correction some wrong implications.

Amendment 182

submitted by:: Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni
provision:: rec 2
language:: English
topic:: Harmonisation

amendment
Differences exist in the protection of computer-implemented inventions offered by the administrative practices and the case law of the different Member States. Such differences could create barriers to trade and hence impede the proper functioning of the internal market.	Differences exist in the protection of computer-assisted inventions resulting from the administrative practices and the case law of the different Member States. Such differences could create barriers to trade and hence impede the proper functioning of the internal market.
justification
See justification amendment on article 1.

Amendment 183

submitted by:: Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni
provision:: rec 5
language:: English
topic:: Harmonisation

amendment
Therefore, the legal rules governing the patentability of computer-implemented inventions should be harmonised so as to ensure that the resulting legal certainty and the level of requirements demanded for patentability enable innovative enterprises to derive the maximum advantage from their inventive process and provide an incentive for investment and innovation. Legal certainty will also be secured by the fact that, in case of doubt as to the interpretation of this Directive, national courts may, and national courts of last instance must, seek a ruling from the Court of Justice.	Therefore, the legal rules governing the patentability of computer-assisted inventions should be harmonised so as to ensure that the resulting legal certainty and the level of requirements demanded for patentability enable innovative enterprises to derive the maximum advantage from their inventive process and provide an incentive for investment and innovation. Legal certainty will also be secured by the fact that, in case of doubt as to the interpretation of this Directive, national courts may, and national courts of last instance must, seek a ruling from the Court of Justice.
justification
See justification article 1.

Amendment 256

submitted by:: Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni
provision:: rec 23
language:: English
topic:: Harmonisation

amendment
Since the objective of this Directive, namely to harmonise national rules on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty.	Since the objective of the proposed action, namely to harmonise national rules on the patentability computer-assisted inventions, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of this action, be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty.
justification
Idem justification article 1.

[ Reject the Directive > The Need for Harmonisation | Meaning of TRIPs | What Patents are Good for | Relations between Patent and Copyright | Not a separate body of law | Strengthening EU in International Competition ]

http://localhost/swpat/papers/europarl0309/amends05/juri0504/harmon.en.html
© 2005-06-12 Hartmut PILCH
english version 2005-03-20 by Hartmut PILCH