The Parliamentary History of the European "Unitary Patent"

German attorney and Certified Specialist for IP Law Ingve Stjerna is known to our readers as an alert and critical commenter of the UPC legislation process (see posts here, here, here, here, here ) and constitutional issues. I do not know what was the reason to abandon the Opt-Out-fee but I think that Ingve's convincing arguments might have played a role.

For those who want to recapture the fascinating parliamentary history of the UPC legislation or simply express their gratitude for Ingve's fight to saveguard our constitutional rights, PatLit recommends to invest one the saved Opt-Out-Fees into his new book:

The Parliamentary History of the European "Unitary Patent"  

Verbatim protocol of selected meetings in the European Parliament and its Legal Affairs Committee (English and original language)  

This book documents the course of the negotiations on the “Unitary Patent Package”. It reproduces the wording of statements made in selected public meetings of the European Parliament and its Legal Affairs Committee on the “Patent Package”, thus permitting a detailed review of the different stages and developments of the legislative procedure, for instance the perception of the European Court of Justice’s opinion 1/09 on the originally planned structure of the Patent Court system, the discussions about invoking the procedure of enhanced cooperation as well as the origins of the controversies about the former Articles 6 to 8 of the “Unitary Patent” Regulation, their escalation after the European Council summit decisions in June 2012 and their resolution according to the Cyprus Council Presidency compromise proposal. 

The book "The Parliamentary History of the European Unitary Patent" is available in two different language versions, German (ISBN 978-3-7345-1071-7) and English (ISBN 978-3-7345-1742-6), more information can be found here (German) and here (English)

ACTA: Not yet born and already gone

As the European Parliament web pages informes (here):

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was rejected by the European Parliament on 4 July 2012, by 478 votes to 39, with 165 abstentions. Parliament could not amend the ACTA, but only approve or reject it. Its rejection means that neither the EU nor its individual member states can join the agreement.

Reasons for rejection mentioned:

"In so doing, it followed its International Trade Committee, which recommended on 21 June, by 19 votes to 12 with no abstentions, that Parliament should indeed reject it.

Four other committees had also delivered opinions suggesting that ACTA should be rejected : the Industry, Research and Energy Committee (rapporteur Amelia Andersdotter, Greens, SE), the Legal Affairs Committee (rapporteur Evelyn Regner S&D, AT), the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (rapporteur Dimitrios Droutsas S&D, EL) and the Development Committee (rapporteur Eva Joly, Greens, FR).

On 19 June the Petitions Committee debated 5 petitions from citizens calling on MEPs to reject ACTA, one signed by over 2.8 million people from all over the world. The 5 petitions were kept open, meaning that citizens will continue to have a clear means to appeal if they feel that ACTA does not comply with EU law.

On 25 April 2012 David Martin, the MEP responsible for steering ACTA dossier through Parliament, presented his recommendation for the European Parliament to reject ACTA. He referred to concerns of unintended consequences of the ACTA, text specifically on individual criminalisation, the definition of “commercial scale”, the role of internet service providers and possible interruptions in the supply of generic medicines.

"The intended benefits of this international agreement are far outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties. Given the vagueness of certain aspects of the text and the uncertainty over its interpretation, the European Parliament cannot guarantee adequate protection for citizens' rights in the future under ACTA. Your rapporteur therefore recommends that the European Parliament declines to give consent to ACTA", he said".

As Jeremy pointed out a couple years ago (here) “ACTA is a good deal less radical, and much less sinister, than had at first been feared in result of the exclusionary and secret manner in which it was initiated and originally drafted”. Why has then been rejected? I would say that the secrecy in its creation has driven to this result. ACTA final version here European Parliament Press release here