PlenVotingList0507En

Plenary amendments: draft voting advice

-> [ fran├žais ] [ Amendments | Analysis ]


The most important amendments of all are those to Articles 4.1, 4.2, 5.2 and 6a; there is also a serious error in JURI amendment 20 to Art 3.1, which must be corrected.

See also: Collated full text of the amendments, and more detailed explanation of FFII's voting advice

NB: final voting advice may evolve, depending on final vote sequence; what split votes are allowed; last-minute compromise amendments (if any); and what amendments the tabling office deems are compatible or incompatible with which other amendments. If amendments are ruled to conflict, this may require some amendments currently shown as + to be downgraded to - . The current advice is therefore a preliminary guide only.

Revision 2.0.0 (Monday, 21:30 CET)

clause

topic

amend #

source

advice

comment

REJECTION

Reject the directive outright

62=65=71

Greens; GUE; Ind Dem; ALDE

+

Balanced question, but better to think again

ARTICLES

A1

Scope

40=72=93=114=135=158

Coalition 1

++

"computer-aided inventions" throughout

14

JURI 14

+

"computer-controlled inventions", here only

A2(a)

Definition: CAI/CII

41=73=94=115=136=159

Coalition 2

++

requires "invention in the sense of patent law"

15

JURI 15

+

A2(b)

Definition: Technical contribution

42=74=95=116=137=160

Coalition 3

++

removes the extra "technical"

16

JURI 16

+

contains one extra "technical"

A2(b)a

Definition: Field of Technology

43=61=75=96=117=138=161

Coalition 4, EPP Kauppi/Lehne

+

"Applied natural science"

17

JURI 17

+

"Application domain requiring forces of nature"

A2(b)b

Definition: Technical

18

JURI 18

+

uncontroversial

A2(b)c

Definition: Interoperability

19

JURI 19

+

useful

A2(b)c'

def Computer, Computer Program

44=76=97=118=139=162

Coalition 5

+

A3

Patent requirements

45=77=98=119=140=163

Coalition 6

++

Clear statement of requirements

20

JURI 20

+/--

Serious error, allows non-technical patenting

A3.2

Disclosure

21

JURI 21

+

A basic requirement of patent law

A3(a)

Data Processing not a field of technology

156

Panella, Bonino et al

+

A4.1

Interpretation of "as such"

46=78=99=120=141=164

Coalition 7

VITAL

Whole purpose of the directive is to explain "as such"

157

Panella, Bonino et al

+

Programs for computers are not inventions

A4.2

Exclusions from patentability

47=79=100=121=142=165

Coalition 8

VITAL

Higher barrier needed than Council text

A4.3

Exclusions from patentability

59=91=112=132=154=177

Coalition 20

+

Not just improvements to the programming

A5.1

Patent claims

22

JURI 22

+

Technical product or process only

A5.2

Program claims

48=80=101=122=143=166

Coalition 9

VITAL

No program claims

66

ALDE Bowles

?

No program claims, but catches legitimate uses

A5.2a

Freedom of publication

49=81=102=123=144=167

Coalition 10

+

A5.2a

Patents and copyright

64

ALDE Prodi

-

A5.2a'

Limitation on patent claims

23

JURI 23

+

Only what's claimed

A5.2b

Limitation on program claims

24

JURI 24

o

False comfort

A6a

Interoperability

50=82=103=124=145=168

Coalition 11

VITAL

Interoperability exception

68

Mann/McCarthy

+

Interoperability exception, except for (F)RAND standards

67

UEN Crowley

-

RAND Interoperability, subject to Art 30 TRIPS

63

EPP Kauppi/Purvis

-

RAND Interoperability, fewer injunctions

25

JURI 25

-

RAND Interoperability

A7 to 8a

misc requests to Commission

26 to 39

JURI 26 to 39

*

not yet analysed

RECITALS

R5a

Art 52 EPC

1

JURI 1

+

Directive is to confirm and clarify Art 52 EPC

R6

TRIPS

51=83=104=125=146=169

Coalition 12

+

Clarify TRIPS does not require s/w patents

R7

Art 52 EPC

52=84=105=126=147=170

Coalition 13

+

Interpretation of Art 52 EPC

R8a

Directive & EPO

2

JURI 2

+

States should respect this directive in negotiations

R8b

Directive & EPO

3

JURI 3

+

States should press EPO to follow directive

R9

Economic considerations

53=85=106=127=148=171

Coalition 14

+

Awareness of positives and negatives

R10

Patents and copyright

54=86=107=128=149=172

Coalition 15

+

Software ideas should remain open to all

R10a

Technical contribution

4

JURI 4

-

Duplicative and over-broad definition

R11

Requirements for Patentability

60=92=113=134=155=178

Coalition 21

+

Invention/innovation

5

JURI 5

+

Full statement of the requirements

R12

Technical contribution

55=87=108=129=150=173

Coalition 16

+

Tech contribution a test of invention

6

JURI 6

-

TC a test of inventive step (wrong).

R13

No technical contribution

56=88=109=130=151=174

Coalition 17

+

No tech contribution => No invention

R14a

Data Processing

7

JURI 7

?

Doesn't mean physical data acquisition

R15

Technical contribution (continued)

8

JURI 8

+

Linguistic correction to FR language version

R16

Algorithms

57=89=110=131=152=175

Coalition 18

+

Cannot be a technical invention in itself

R17a

Disclosure

9

JURI 9

+

Re-statement of basic patent law

R19 (S)

Limitation of Directive Scope

58=90=111=132=153=176

Coalition 19

+

Delete - Speaks of non technical inventions

R20

Community competitiveness

10

JURI 10

+

Remove unnecessary questionable assertion

R20a

Patents & SMEs

11

JURI 11

+/-

Set up new committee; "patents help SMEs"

R20a'

Interoperability

69

Mann/McCarthy

+

def Standards body for Am 68

R20b

Interoperability

70

Mann/McCarthy

+

def (F)RAND for Am 68

R21

Competition Law

12

JURI 12

+

Don't restrict to interoperability

R21a

Monitoring

13

JURI 13

+

More research on patents and SMEs

Hosting sponsored by Netgate and Init Seven AG