Art40eTPEPC1973

Métadonnées

• Nom affiché : Art40eTPEPC1973
• Numéro d'article : 40
• Dossier / langue : English
• Tag langue : #English
• PDF original : Articles/English/Articles 026-050/Article 040 (English version)/Art40eTPEPC1973.pdf

Comment:

The collection represents purely an internal research tool for the purpose of Directorate Patent Law of the European Patent Office. No guarantee can be given for its completeness or correctness. The documents produced before 1969 cannot be provided in English as this was not an official language in the period before that date. These documents therefore are provided in French and German.

Page 2

Art. 40 MPO Bemessung der Gebühren und Anteile - besondere Finanzbeiträge

Entwurf, der dem nebenstehenden Dokument zugrunde liegt	Art. Nr. im Entwurf/ Dokument	Dokument, in dem der Art. behandelt wird	Fundstelle im Dokument
Vorschl.d.Vors.	49	IV/215/62	S. 101-103
Vorschl.d.Vors.	49a	IV/215/62	S. 103-105
VE Mai 1962	42	6551/IV/62	S. 17,60
IV/215/62	49	IV/3076/62	S. 148+149
VE 1970 (Ue)	42 c	BR/GT IV/32/70	Rdn. 9
BR/GT IV/31/70	42 d	BR/GT IV/32/70	Rdn. 10
BR/GT IV/31/70	42 g	BR/GT IV/32/70	Rdn. 13
BR/GT IV/31/70	42 c	BR/GT IV/41/70	Rdn. 10-18
BR/GT IV/31/70	42 d	BR/GT IV/41/70	Rdn. 10-18
BR/GT IV/31/70	42 g	BR/GT IV/41/70	Rdn. 23
VE 1971 (Ue)	44	BR/178/72	Rdn. 6-9
BR/88/71	42 c	BR/125/71	Rdn. 162
BR/199/72	38	BR/219/72	Rdn. 124-132

Dokumente der ·MDK

E 1972	38	M/32	S. 2+3
"	38	M/40	S. 2
"	38	M/47/I/II/III	S. 4
"	38	M/52/I/III/II	S. 5
"	38	M/54/I/II/III	S. 4
"	38	M/85/III	S. 1+2
"	38	M/127/III	S. 1
"	36	M/132/III/R 1	S. 2
"	38	M/146/R 2	Art. 40

REPORT

by Mr. Paul Braendli, Lic. iur. Vice-Director of the Federal Intellectual Property Office (Switzerland) on the results of Main Committee I's proceedings

REPORT

by Mr. R. Bowen Assistant Comptroller, British Patent Office on the results of Main Committee II's proceedings

REPORT

by Mr. Fressonnet Deputy Director of the Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (France) on the results of Main Committee III's proceedings

REPORT

by Mr. A. Fernandez Mazarambroz Head of the Spanish Patent Office on the results of the Credentials Committee's proceedings with regard to full powers for signing the Convention

Article 48 (50) - Financial Regulations

107. The Netherlands delegation noted that the German text of sub-paragraph (I) was not the same as the two other versions, which it proposed should be adapted to the former. 108. The Main Committee decided to request the General Drafting Committee to examine whether the three versions of Artice 48, sub-paragraph (I), corresponded with one another and, if not, to align them.

Article 146 - Cover for expenditure for carrying out special tasks

109. The Netherlands delegation remarked that in the new version of paragraph I, the reference to Article 37 (39), paragraphs 3 and 4, seemed to be superfluous, since these provisions were referred to in Article 39 (41), which was also cited. 110. In reply to this point it was observed that Article 146 referred both to the payments by the Contracting States dealt with in Article 37 (39) and to the advances dealt with in Article 39 (41). It was therefore desirable to leave both references in the text. 111. In conclusion, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee explained why his Committee had deleted paragraph 2. Since paragraph 1 now also referred back to Article 46 (47) which laid down general rules on provisional budgets in respect of all the Contracting States, paragraph 2, which had been concerned with provisional budgets in respect of a group of Contracting States, could be omitted. 112. The Main Committee recorded its agreement to this drafting amendment of Article 146.

B. Discussion of M/85/III submitted by the United Kingdom delegation

113. The United Kingdom delegation referred to its document M/85/III and set forth its views on how the special financial contributions should be repaid by the European Patent Office to the Contracting States and in particular on how the relevant interest rate should be determined. The interest rate which, pursuant to Article 38 (40), paragraph 7, of the Convention was to be the same for all Contracting States and which, pursuant to Article 48 (50), was to be laid down in the Financial Regulations by the Administrative Council, should not be 4 % as previously assumed by the Working Party on Finance of the Luxembourg Inter-Governmental Conference. The interest rate should be the weighted average of the operative government bank rates or minimum lending rates and be reviewed annually by the Administrative Council. At the same time the fees of the European Patent Office should be fixed so as to ensure that repayment of the special financial contributions would - as envisaged in Final Document No. 10 - begin no later than 11 years after and be completed no later than 26 years after the opening of the European Patent Office. When the annual review of the interest rate was carried out the fees should also be adjusted as necessary.

Under the financial model which had been used as a basis up until the present time some Contracting States would - at an interest rate of 4 % which was completely out of line with present realities - be subsidising the users of the European Patent Office, i. e. industry in particular, and this, at least in the view of the United Kingdom delegation, was unacceptable.

The United Kingdom delegation stated that it would be grateful if the other delegations would express their views on its proposals. 114. The French delegation agreed with the United Kingdom delegation's view that the interest rate should be more closely aligned to the rates operative in the Contracting States and that fees should be fixed at such a level that the European Patent Office would not need to be temporarily subsidised by the Contracting States. 115. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany considered that the views put forward in M/85/III were basically correct. The United Kingdom delegation's proposals on the level of interest rates were unquestionably based on correct assumptions. However, the fees should not be fixed at such a high level as to have a deterrent effect, since this would not be in the interests of the European Patent Office. This delegation was also of the opinion that sub-paragraph (ii) of M/85/III should read to the effect that "if possible" repayments should begin in year 11 and "if possible" be completed in year 26. 116. The Netherlands delegation stated that it agreed in principle with the United Kingdom delegation's views; in particular the interest rate would under present circumstances have to be considerably higher than 4 %. It would, however, be somewhat hazardous to create any firm commitment, for example as regards the repayment period. It felt that in genera. the principles put forward by the United Kingdom delegation should be applied flexibly. 117. The Swiss delegation also favoured a flexible application of the principles proposed by the United Kingdom delegation. 118. The UNION delegation sympathised with the United Kingdom proposals but wondered whether any calculations had been made on the effects which increasing the interest rate from 4 % to, for example, 12 % would have on the expenditure, fees, etc. of the European Patent Office. 119. The United Kingdom delegation replied that it had once drawn up rough estimates on the effects that an increase in the procedural and renewal fees would have on the special financial contributions of the Contracting States. It felt however that there was not much point in making more precise calculations at the present time since conditions might have completely changed in three or five years. 120. The Chairman confirmed that as yet no calculation had been made on the effects of repaying the financial contributions of the Contracting States at realistic market rates of interest. This would simply not be feasible since it was impossible to predict at the present time the level of market interest rates in the future. Doubtless, to increase the interest rate would have an effect on the financial contributions or on the procedural fees or on both; a further factor which would have to be considered was the length of the repayment period. All these points would have to be taken into account in drawing up a financial model, and above all it would have to be borne in mind that the fees might be so high as to render the whole operation unprofitable.

Referring to the reactions to M/85/III, submitted by the United Kingdom delegation, the Chairman noted that, whilst all delegations were in agreement with the principles which it contained, those delegations which had expressed a view were in favour of applying these principles flexibly, in particular as regards the level of fees. 121. The Chairman noted that all the items on the agenda had been discussed, thanked all those who had taken part for contributing towards such a speedy and successful conclusion to the proceedings of Main Committee III and declared the meeting closed. 122. Finally, on behalf of all the delegations, the French delegation thanked the Chairman for the objective, impartial and often forbearing way in which he had conducted proceedings throughout, both in Main Committee III and in the Working Party on Finance of the Luxembourg Inter-Governmental Conference.

Page 5

the difference being compensated by an additional payment would not come to the same thing. 89. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany considered that there was a psychological difference even if both methods led to the same result as far as the actual amount of money was concerned. It was important that full-time members of the Boards should not feel themselves to be less favourably placed than persons carrying out the same activities on a part-time basis. This might well be the case if different criteria were applied for calculating remuneration and allowances. Moreover, the assumption that the members of the Boards would be employed at Grade A 3 should be accepted as valid since the whole projected pay structure might otherwise be upset.

The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany then proposed that the remuneration and allowances of the persons referred to in Article 159, paragraph 2, should be based on the highest step of Grade A 3 and that the daily rate thus arrived at should be supplemented by an additional payment to be fixed by the Administrative Council in the light of individual circumstances. 90. This proposal was supported by the Swiss delegation. 91. The Netherlands delegation wondered whether it would not be better to allow the Administrative Council complete discretion in fixing the amount of remuneration and allowances since it was this body which would be drawing up the provisions governing the categories and incremental steps in question. 92. This matter was then put to the vote, in which there were three delegations for and four delegations against the German proposal, and thirteen abstentions. 93. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany thereupon withdrew its proposal on the last paragraph of point 2 of the Recommendation (M/11, point 15). 94. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany then raised the question of the legal form of the Recommendation and the parties to which it should be addressed. It felt that it would not be proper for the Conference to adopt a decision concerning, inter alia, the remuneration of part-time members of Boards of Appeal, since this would be binding not only on the Interim Committee to be set up now but also on the Administrative Council to be set up at a later date. The correct procedure would be for the Conference to recommend the Interim Committee to prepare an Administrative Council decision which would, inter alia, settle the question of the remuneration and allowances of the persons referred to in Article 159, paragraph 2, in the manner desired by the Main Committee. 95. The Netherlands delegation considered that it would be odd if such a recommendation dealt only with the remuneration and allowances of part-time members of the Boards of Appeal, and not those of the rest of the staff. It would perhaps be more correct to incorporate the present Recommendation in the Recommendation on preparations for the opening of the European Patent Office (M/8) or to deal with it in the same way as the draft Service Regulations. 96. The United Kingdom delegation was of the opinion that the content of the Recommendation in question was of great psychological importance in that it would demonstrate to those using the patent grant procedure that part-time members of the Boards of Appeal were highly qualified. The Boards of Appeal would have an important role to play in the future development of European patent law. This was also particularly true of the Revocation Boards under the Community Patent Convention, which would consistently be staffed by the same persons, and the Recommendation as such - though not in the form of a decision - must therefore be retained. 97. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany was against incorporating the content of the Recommendation in M/8, because if this was done it would have to be considerably shortened. The Conference should simply note the Recommendation and refer it to the Interim Committee for consideration at a later date. The content of the Recommendation would thus remain as it stood and future users of the European Patent Office could go by Article 159 of the Convention, which gave an important indication of the professional qualifications of future members of the Boards of Appeal. The Conference documents would indicate what arrangements the Main Committe felt should be made as regards the remuneration and allowances of part-time members of the Boards. 98. In the opinion of the French delegation the Recommendation on preparations for the opening of the European Patent Office (M/8) was so broadly drafted as to enable the Interim Committee to prepare both general provisions for the Service Regulations and special provisions for the persons referred to in Article 159 of the Convention. The Recommendation under discussion should be adopted by the Conference and be addressed to the relevant body, i. e. probably the Administrative Council. 99. Upon a proposal by the Netherlands delegation the Main Committee finally agreed as follows:

The Main Committee approved the content of the Recommendation regarding the status and remuneration of the employees referred to in Article 159, paragraph 2, of the Convention and expressed the wish that the Interim Committee and the Administrative Council would act upon it when the time came.

A. Discussion of the results of the proceedings of the Drafting Committee

100. Except where otherwise specified below, the Main Committee approved the financial provisions re-examined the day before by its Drafting Committee, as contained in M/132/III/R 1, and agreed to forward them to the Committee of the Whole.

Article 38 (40) - Level of fees and payments Special financial contributions

101. The Danish delegation wondered whether the end of paragraph 3(b) should not be worded as follows: "applications filed in another Contracting State by natural or legal persons having their residence or principal place of business in that Contracting State". 102. The Chairman stated that it was more correct to use the plural here, since the object was to compare the number of applications filed by persons from a particular Contracting State in each of the other Contracting States and to take the second highest number of such applications. 103. The French delegation supported this view. 104. The Main Committee agreed to leave all three versions of paragraph 3(b) unchanged. 105. The Main Committee also noted that the reference in paragraph 3(b) to the "residence" or "principal place of business" of natural or legal persons corresponded in all three languages with the terminology used by Main Committee I in similar contexts in other parts of the Convention and in particular in the provisions concerning representation. 106. At the request of the Luxembourg delegation, supported by the Belgian and French delegations, the Main Committee decided that in the French text of paragraph 7 the word "versées" should be replaced by "remboursées".

Page 6

subscribed to the Netherlands proposal subject to the rider proposed by the French delegation (see M/47/I/II/III, point 12). 39. The Netherlands delegation agreed that its proposal be supplemented as suggested by the French and German delegations. 40. The Belgian delegation drew attention to the fact that if a parent company filed a priority application in a Contracting State and a subsidiary subsequently filed an identical application in another Contracting State, the application would appear in the statistios twice. 41. The Yugoslav delegation was also in favour of the combined French-Netherlands proposal. 42. The Main Committee adopted the Netherlands proposal with the addition suggested by the French delegation; in this connection it was agreed that the normal Convention terminology be used to refer to natural or legal persons resident in a Contracting State. 43. With regard to paragraph A / b, the Netherlands delegation asked why the second highest number of patent applications filed by natural or legal persons having their residence or principal place of business in a Contracting State the other Contracting States had been taken as a basis for calculation. 44. The French delegation pointed out that the three States theory had served as a basis for estimating the future use to be made of the European Patent Organisation by the nationals of the Contracting States to the Convention. According to this theory, applicants from Contracting States would seek a European patent if they applied for a national patent in at least two other Contracting States in addition to their State of origin when filing national patents. The second hightest number of applications from a given Contracting State X was statistically quantifiable; it could be calculated by taking as a basis the number of applications filed in the last year but one prior to that of entry into force of the Convention by persons from Contracting State X, not just in that State nor in Contracting States X and Y, but in Contracting States X, Y and Z; the aggregate of all the applications filed in Contracting State Z in the above combination represented the "second highest number" for Contracting State X. 45. At the request of the Netherlands delegation, the Main Committee noted with reference to the last sub-paragraph of paragraph 3 that the contributions from States in which the number of patent applications filed in the last year but one prior to that of entry into force of the Convention exceeded 25,000 should be taken as a whole and a new scale drawn up. 46. The Swiss delegation proposed deleting paragraph 4 (M/54/I/II/III, page 4). It thought that these provisions could have no practical significance since contributions would be based on the figures for 1974 or 1975 and in these years there would still be no applications under the PCT which, at any rate as far as the States represented at this Conference were concerened, would not enter into force before the European Patent Convention. 47. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany said it could agree with the Swiss proposal and the reasons for it. However, since in theory it was not out of the question that the PCT would enter into force earlier, the minutes of the meeting should record that the Main Committee considered that, in this event, for the purpose of paragraph 3, international applications in respect of which a Contracting State was designated should be regarded as applications filed in that State. 48. The Netherlands delegation felt that its drafting proposal for paragraph 4(M / 52 / I / II / III, point 5 ) offered an equally simple solution. 49. The French delegation supported the proposal to delete paragraph 4 and to record in the minutes of the meeting that the Main Committee considered that, in the event of the early entry into force of the PCT, international applications should be regarded as national applications for the purpose of paragrap 3 3. 50. The Netherlands delegation said that whilst it did not wish to oppose the deletion of paragraph 4 and a note on this point being included in the minutes of the meeting, it was not quite certain whether the Main Committee's hypothetical interpretation of paragraph 3 would necessarily be binding on all the Contracting States. 51. The WIPO delegation thought that it was useful to cover PCT applications even if it was not likely that the PCT would enter into force, in respect of the Contracting States of the Convention, before the entry into force of the Convention; it was not unusual in legal texts to lay down provisions for cases which were not likely to arise. 52. The Main Committee decided to delete paragraph 4.

It considered that, in the unlikely event of the PCT entering into force before the Convention in respect of the Contracting States to the latter, international applications in respect of which a Contracting State was designated, should, for the purpose of paragraph 3, be regarded as applications filed in that State. The Main Committee noted in this connection that, if it should become necessary to interpret paragraph 3, the interpretation should be in accordance with the deleted paragraph 4 in the text of M / 1 and should not be based on the Netherlands delegation's proposal (M/52/I/II/III, Point 5). 53. The Main Committee referred a drafting proposal from the United Kingdom delegation concerning paragraph 7(M / 40, point 12) to the Drafting Committee.

Article 41 (43) - Authorisation for expenditure

54. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany proposed that the German text of paragraph 2 should make it clear that appropriations relating to staff costs could not be carried forward to a subsequent accounting period (M/11, point 20 and M/47/I/II/III, point 40). 55. The Main Committee referred this proposal to the Drafting Committee.

Article 45 (47) - Provisional budget

56. The Swiss delegation proposed that paragraph 2 should specify that the Administrative Council could, in respect of specific headings or other divisions of the budget, authorise expenditure in excess on one-twelfth of the budget appropriations for the preceding accounting period, but not in excess of one-twelfth of the appropriations provided for in the draft budget (M/54/I/II/III, page 5). 57. The Netherlands delegation supported this proposal which it considered to be of a purely drafting nature. 58. The United Kingdom delegation pointed out that the Working Party on Finance of the Luxembourg Inter-Governmental Conference had considered that the text of paragraph 2, which was modelled on Article 204, paragraph 2, of the EEC Treaty, should not be amended despite a certain degree of unclarity. 59. In the Luxembourg delegation's opinion the "one-twelfth" in paragraph 2 should be taken to mean one-twelfth of the budget appropriations for the preceding accounting period. 60. The Chairman said that he interpreted paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 45 in the following way. If, at the beginning of an accounting period, the budget had not been adopted, expenditures could be effected on a monthly basis per heading up to one-twelfth of the budget appropriations for the

Page 7

patent applications filed in that country at the present time. This figure would show the requirement of both national and international industry for patent protection in a particular country. It would therefore be in the latter's interest for patent protection to be made available by means of a modern examination system.

Furthermore, the financial contributions had been calculated for more than ten years on the basis of statistics which reflected the situation in the penultimate year before the entry into force of the Convention. It was however likely that the less developed countries would catch up with the others. Thus it could hardly be claimed that the (at present) less developed countries were being treated unfairly. If this were however exceptionally the case, the rates of interest envisaged for the financial contributions would constitute some degree of compensation. Once the final stage had been reached a just system of financing would be assured by means of financing on the basis of renewal fees.

Finally, it should be borne in mind that the current method was a compromise proposed by two of the Scandinavian delegations and adopted by a majority at the Inter-Governmental Conference. It would be ill-advised to call the compromise into question again. 18. The Chairman again pointed out that the present wording of paragraph 3 was a compromise solution which had been arrived at following arduous negotiation. The Spanish delegation was doubtless correct in maintaining that the benefit to be derived from the Convention by the individual Contracting States would depend on the use made of the system for the grant of patents by their own nationals. It should, however, not be forgotten that under the system those States which did not have examined patents would obtain examined patents of a high quality. 19. The Irish delegation also sympathised with the Spanish proposal, but was unwilling to jeopardise the hard-won compromise solution. 20. The Swiss delegation was unable to accept the Spanish proposal under any circumstances, as the present compromise solution contained in paragraph 3 was at the very limit of what could be accepted by Switzerland. The competent Swiss authorities had expressed extreme reservations before agreeing to it. If the :ompromise were called into question at this stage, Switzerland would probably be unable to sign the Convention. It would have preferred a method whereby the financial contributions were calculated on the basis of actual rather than hypothetical figures. 21. The French delegation felt that the compromise solution, which it had already advocated in the cose of the Luxembourg Inter-Governmental Conference, should not be called into question. 22. The Portuguese delegation considered the Spanish proposal to be fairer than the present method proposed, on the grounds that the number of patent applications filed in one Contracting State and originating in the other Contracting States should be the prime factor in determining the financial contributions. 23. The Turkish delegation supported the Spanish proposal, which it felt would favour certain Contracting States, while not incurring too great a disadvantage for the others. 24. The Swiss delegation requested that the scale of contributions be re-calculated on the basis of the Spanish proposal and submitted to the Main Committee before any vote on the matter be taken. 25. The Secretariat representative said that it was technically impossible for the Secretariat to re-calculate the contributions on the basis of the latest available WIPO statistics (for 1971) in time for the Main Committee meeting now in progress. The

Secretariat could however draw up a comparative table on the basis of the WIPO statistics for 1970, showing the percentage applicable to each Contracting State on the basis of the present text of paragraph 3 as against that applicable on the basis of the Spanish proposal and submit it to the Main Committee within a matter of hours. 26. The Main Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare a comparative table for the afternoon session. 27. At the end of the meeting the Main Committee resumed its discussion of the matter on the basis of the comparative table submitted by the Secretariat. 28. The United Kingdom delegation pointed to the fact that for an amendment which would entail considerable alterations to the financial burdens of certain Contracting States, the Spanish proposal had been submitted rather late in the day. All the delegations would presumably have consulted their competent financial authorities on the basis of the reasonable compromise embodied in Article 38 of the Draft Convention, and nobody could have expected any further proposals to be made. In view of the above considerations the United Kingdom delegation could give its support only to Article 38 as it now stood. 29. The German and Netherlands delegations endorsed the comments made by the United Kingdom delegation. 30. The Danish delegation held that the compromise reached at the instigation of two of the Scandinavian States was a fair solution to the matter. It therefore regretted that it would have to oppose the Spanish proposal. 31. The Spanish delegation pointed out that at the Luxembourg Inter-Governmental Conference certain States had been unable to accept the compromise solution and therefore felt they were justified in bringing the matter up once again at the Diplomatic Conference. It still contended that its proposal constituted an equitable solution, as it took adequate account of the number of patent applications filed in each Contracting State. 32. The Italian delegation said that after due consideration of all the points involved it would abstain from any vote taken. 33. The subsequent vote on the Spanish proposal showed four delegations in favour, with thirteen against; three delegations abstained. 34. The Netherlands delegation proposed that the term "residents" be substituted for "nationals" in paragraph 3(b) (M/32, point 6 and M/52/1/11/111, point 5). It pointed out in support of its proposal that it was much more difficult to establish the nationality of applicants than the fact that they were resident in a specific Contracting State. 35. The Chairman felt that any decision on the matter would have to be based on the relevant type of statistics which WIPO could make available to the European Patent Organisation. 36. The WIPO delegation said that, at present, WIPO annual statistics were based on information on the country of origin of the applicant and took both nationality and residence into consideration. In future WIPO intended to base its statistics solely on the applicant's residence. 37. The French delegation considered that for French purposes Article 38, paragraph 3(b), should include French nationals and all persons who would be bound under French law to file their applications in France, as well as natural and legal persons having their residence or principal place of business in France. In view of the WIPO delegation's remarks and the fact that the term "nationals" did not occur elsewhere in the Convention, it would support the Netherlands proposal, with the proviso that it must include both natural and legal persons having their residence or principal place of business in a Contracting State. 38. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany

Minutes of the proceedings of Main Committee III

1. Main Committee III, which was set up by the Plenary of the Conference to deal with finance matters (Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure)*, was chaired by Mr. Edward Armitage, Comptroller-General of the Patent Office (United Kingdom). Dr. Walter Stamm, Director of the Federal Intellectual Property Office (Switzerland), was first Vice-Chairman; the other Vice-Chairmen were Mr. Leif Nordstrand, Director of the Central Industrial Property Office (Norway), and Mr. Yavuz Akdag, legal adviser to the Turkish Permanent Delegation to the European Communities (Turkey). Mr. Pierre Fressonnet, Deputy Director of the Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (France), was the rapporteur (see M/PR/K/1, points 19, 20 and 25; M/46/K, page 2 and M/55/K, page 3). 2. The tasks of Main Committee III were defined in Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure (M/34) and in a recommendation adopted by the Steering Committee of the Conference (M/56/I/II/III).

In accordance with the above, the Main Committee was responsible for Chapter V (Financial provisions) of Part 1 of the Draft Convention (Articles 35 - 49), for Articles 146, 147, 160, 169 and 175 and for the Recommendation regarding the status and remuneration of the employees referred to in Article 159, paragraph 2, of the Convention (M/7). 3. Main Committee III met under its Chairman on 24 September 1973 and the afternoon of 25 September 1973. 4. The Main Committee opened its meeting on 24 September 1973 by appointing its Drafting Committee, which, in the same way as the Drafting Committee of the Working Party on Finance of the Luxembourg Inter-Governmental Conference, consisted of the delegations of the Federal Republic of Germany, France and the United Kingdom; its Chairman was Dr. Otto Bossung, judge at the Federal Patent Court and adviser to the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany. 5. At its meeting on 24 September 1973 the Main Committee discussed the provisions of the Draft Convention which had been referred to it for examination, and made a basic study of the Recommendation regarding the status and remuneration of the employees referred to in Article 159, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The discussions on these points are summarised in part I below.

At its meeting on 25 September 1973 the Committee discussed the results of the proceedings of the Drafting Committee of the previous day, as well as the document submitted by the United Kingdom delegation (M/85/III). These discussions are given in part II below.

A. Financial Provisions

6. Except where otherwise specified below, the Main Committee approved Articles 35 to 49 (37 to 51)**, 146, 147, 160 (161) and 175 (176) of the Draft Convention (M/1) and agreed to forward them to the Committee of the Whole.

Article 35 (37) - Cover for expenditure

7. The Main Committee referred a drafting proposal by the United Kingdom delegation on sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) (M/40, point 11) to the Drafting Committee.

• The Rules of Procedure (M/34) had previously been adopted unanimously by the Plenary (see M/PR/K/1, point 10).

Article 38 (40) - Level of fees and payments Special financial contributions

8. The Spanish delegation, supported by the Portuguese delegation, proposed that the two factors given in paragraph 3(a) and (b) for calculating the financial contributions should be applied in a ratio of 1: 3 and not 1: 1; the basis used for calculating the contributions by any Contracting State should be one quarter in proportion to the number of patent applications filed in that Contracting State and three quarters in proportion to the second hightest number of patent applications filed in all other Contracting States by natural or legal persons having their residence or principal place of business in that Contracting State (M/127/III). 9. The Main Committee agreed to discuss the proposal, which was distributed on 24 September 1973, at its meeting on the same day. 10. The Chairman pointed out that the scale of financial contributions by the Contracting States had already been discussed in detail at the Luxembourg Inter-Governmental Conference. The current wording of the Draft had finally been adopted as a compromise between the method whereby only applications filed in each Contracting State were used as a basis and the method which had just been proposed by the Spanish delegation. 11. In support of its proposal the Spanish delegation stated that it was still convinced that the current weighting of the two factors used in calculating the scale of contributions was unfair in view of the fact that those Contracting States from which most of the patent applications came would derive greater benefit from the system for the grant of patents than those Contracting States for which patents were requested; the former would therefore have to make a proportionately higher contribution to the provisional financing of the European Patent Office. 12. The Italian delegation supported the main contention of the Spanish proposal - viz. that the determining factor should be the use made of the European Patent Office by the nationals of the individual Contracting States; the use made of the European Patent Office would be reflected above all in the number of patent applications likely to be filed by the nationals of the individual Contracting States. 13. The Chairman pointed out that paragraph 3(b) took account of the future use of the European Patent Office by the nationals of the individual Contracting States. 14. In view of the lengthy discussions at the Inter-Governmental Conference, the Netherlands delegation was in favour of adopting paragraph 3 as it stood as a compromise solution, even though the Spanish proposal would have been more advantageous to the Netherlands. 15. The Yugoslav delegation supported the Spanish proposal on the grounds that it was more equitable than the solution currently envisaged. 16. The Luxembourg delegation was also sympathetic to the Spanish proposal, as it felt that the current method provided for in paragraph 3 was not quite fair; it had, however, been necessary to overcome considerable difficulties in reaching the compromise solution, and it would be dangerous to tamper with it now. The Luxembourg delegation would therefore abstain in the event of a vote on the matter. 17. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany considered that it would be an appropriate solution for equal account to be taken of the degree to which a country used the European patent system and the total number of applications. A country's interest in the European patent system was not simply reflected in the degree to which its own nationals filed European patent applications, but rather in the total number of [^0] [^0]: ** The numbers in brackets refer to the numbering og the Articles in the final version of the Convention.

Page 9

Introduction ..... 7 Report on the meeting of the Plenary ..... 9 Opening Meeting (M/PR/K/1) Minutes of the proceedings of the Credentials Committee ..... 25 (M/PR/V) Minutes of the proceedings of Main Committee I ..... 27 (M/PR/I) Minutes of the proceedings of Main Committee II ..... 109 M/PR/II) Minutes of the proceedings of Main Committee III ..... 155 (M/PR/III) Minutes of the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole ..... 163 (M/PR/G) Report on the meeting of the Plenary ..... 199 Final Meeting (M/PR/K/2) List of participants ..... 211

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING

UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM

FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS (Munich, 10 September to 5 October, 1973)

Page 11

(6) The special financial contributions shall be repaid together with interest at a rate which shall be the same for all Contracting States. Repayments shall be made in so far as it is possible to provide for this purpose in the budget; the amount thus provided shall be distributed among the Contracting States in accordance with the scale mentioned in paragraphs 3 and above. (7) The special financial contributions remitted in any accounting period shall be wholly repaid before any such contributions or parts thereof remitted in any subsequent accounting period are repaid.

Article 38^∘

Level of fees and payments - Special financial contributions (1) The amounts of the fees referred to under Article 38 and the proportion referred to under Article 39 shall be fixed at such a level as to ensure that the revenue in respect thereof is sufficient for the budget of the Organisation to be balanced. (2) However, if the Organisation is unable to balance its budget under the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, the Contracting States shall remit to the Organisation special financial contributions, the amount of which shall be determined by the Administrative Council for the accounting period in question. (3) These special firencial contributions shall be determined in respect of any Contracting State on the basis of the number of patent applications filed in the last year bus one prior to that of entry into force of this Convention, and calculated in the following manner: (a) one half in proportion to the number of patent applications filed in that Contracting State; (b) one half in proportion to the second highest number of patent applications filed in the other Contracting States by natural or legal persons having their residence or principle place of business in that Contracting State.

However, the amounts to be contributed by States in which the number of patent applications filed exceeds 25,000 shall then be taken as a whole and a new scale drawn up determined in proportion to the total number of patent applications filed in these States. (4) Detsted (4) Where, in respect of any Contracting State, its scale position cannot be established in accordance with paragraph 3, the Administrative Council shall, with the consent of that State, decide its scale position. (5) Article 39, paragraphs 3 and 4, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the special financial contributions.

Page 13

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Munich, 30 September 1973 M/ 146/R 2 Original: English/French/German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by : General Drafting Committee Subject : Convention : Articles 27 to 54

Page 14

Article 38 Level of fees and payments - special financial contributions (1) unchanged from 1972 published text (2) These special financial contributions shall be determined in respect of any Contracting State on the basis of the number of patent applications filed in the last year but one prior to that of entry into force of this Convention, and calculated in the following manner: (a) one half in proportion to the number of patent applications filed in that Contracting State; (b) one half in proportion to the second highest number of patent applications filed by persons having their residence or principal place of business in that Contracting State in the other Contracting States.

Second sentence only concerns the German text. (4) Deleted (5) unchanged from 1972 published text

Page 15

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Munich, 25 September 1973 M/132/III/R 1 Original: English/French/German

TEXTS DRAWN UP BY THE BRAFTING COMMITTEE OF MAIN COMMITTEE III AT THE MEETING ON 24 SEPTEMBER 1973

Articles of the Convention: Articles 35 36 41 44 45 47 48 146 169

Page 16

Taking into account the reasons which plead in favour of the fairest possible distribution of the financial burden among the Contracting States, even in the form of loans, and considering that this distribution should be in relation to each country's involvement, which will in large measure be proportionate to the utilisation of the European patent system by its nationals, and in order to facilitate the speediest possible incorporation of the largest possible number of States, the Spanish delegation proposes the rewording of Article 38 as follows: (1) (2) } unchanged (3) first sentence unchanged (a) one quarter in proportion to the number of patent applications filed in each Contracting State; (b) three-quarters in proportion to ...

The last sentence in paragraph 3 remains unchanged. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Page 17

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Munich, 24 September 1973 M/127/III Original: French

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: Spanish delegation

Subject : Proposal concerning Article 38 of the Convention

Page 18

The United Kingdom delegation would welcome an assurance that other delegations share their view on this question. This should then be recorded in the minutes of the Conference.

Page 19

Article 38, paragraph 7, provides for States' special contributions to be repaid with interest at a rate which is the same for all Contracting States. According to Article 48 (d), that rate will be fixed in the Financial Regulations. It will therefore be a matter for decision by the Administrative Council in due course.

The financial model for the European Patent Office set out in Final Document No. 10 assumes for purposes of calculation an interest rate of 4

The United Kingdom is strongly of the view that when the time comes for decision on the interest rate and the fees, they should be fixed at a level which will enable the European Patent Office to be truly self-supporting over the period from its opening to the time when the loans will have been repaid, without that period being longer than is envisaged in Final Document No. 10. To that end, the Administration Council should act on the following principles:

(i) The interest rate should be the weighted average of Government Bank Rates or Minimum Lending Rates (as appropriate) operative at the time of Member States.

(ii) The fees will be fixed so as to ensure that repayment begins (as in Final Document No. 10) no later than year 11 and completed no later than year 26.

(iii) The Council will keep the interest rate under annual review and adjust fees as necessary.

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Munich, 14 September 1973 M/ 85/III Original: English

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Dreun up by: United Kingdom delegation

Subject: Article 38 (7): interest on States' special contributions; fees

Page 21

Article 38, paragraph 4

Proposal: Paragraph 4 should be deleted.

Reason: Pursuant to paragraph 3, the special financial contributions are to be calculated on the basis of the number of patent applications filed "in the last year but one prior to that of entry into force" of the Convention. Assuming that the Convention will enter into force in 1976 or 1977, this calculation will be based on the figures for 1974 or 1975. In these years the PCT will not yet have entered into force, at least for the future Contracting States to the European Patent Convention, particularly since the Common Market States evidently do not intend to ratify the PCT before this Convention (see Draft Declaration to this effect in the Draft Convention for the European Patent for the Common Market). Hence the provision of Article 38, paragraph 4 has no practical significance. It can, therefore, be deleted.

Page 22

EPR 7002/73

FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Munich, 10 September 1973

M/54/I/II/III

Original: German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: The Swiss delegation

Subject: Proposals for amendments to the draft texts

Page 23

5. Proposal of the Netherlands Delegation to Article 38, paragraph 3 (b) and paragraph 4.

Article 38, paragraph 3 (b) should be amended to read:

"(b) one half in proportion to the second highest number of patent applications filed by the residents of each Contracting State in the other Contracting States."

Article 38, paragraph 4 should be amended to read:

"(4) For the purpose of paragraph 3 international applications received by any State, pursuant to article 22 or 39 of the Patent Co-operation Treaty, as designated State shall be regarded as applications filed in that State."

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Munich, 10 September 1973 M/52/I/II/III Original : English

Subject : Proposals for amendments to the draft texts

Page 25

European Patent Office without invoking any reason for objection known to him. If a reason for objection is not invoked until after the party has made statements before a Board of Appeal or the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the party shall be required to provide evidence that the reason for objection did not arise or become known to him until after he had made the statements."

9. Article 22a (new) see point 6 10. Article 23 "..... The members of the Examining Divisions shall be responsible for the issue of such opinions."

11. Article 33 ".... Article 156, paragraphs 2 to 4, Article 159, paragraph 1, second sentence, Article 161, ..."

12. Article 38 "(3) (b) ... patent applications filed by persons having their seat or residence in each Contracting State in the other Contracting States."

13. Article 68 see point 33 (Rule 87)

Page 26

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Munich, 10 September 1973

M/47/I/II/III

Original: German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany

Subject: Proposals for amendments to the draft texts

Page 27

5. Article 9 In paragraph (4)(b) "court" should be amended to "courts". 6. Article 10 In paragraph (2)(b) "performed before" should be amended to read "carried out at". 7. Article 12 Paragraph 1 should be amended as follows to be fully consistent with Article 214 of the Rome Treaty: "(1) The employees of the European Patent Office shall be required, even after their duties have ceased, not to disclose information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy". 8. Article 21 Paragraph 4 is ambiguous and should be amended to read: "(4) The Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Beurd of Appeal shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions' of the Implementing Regulations. They shall be subject to the approval of the Administrative Council". 9. Article 25 In the second sentence of paragraph 2 "It" should be amended to read "The term of office". 10. Article 31 In paragraph 1(a), "a single" should be amended to read "one". 11. Article 35 Paragraphs (b) and (c) should be amended to rea: "....made by the Contracting States....". 12. Article 38 In the first sentence, paragraph 7, "....at a rate the same...." should be amended to read "....at a rate which shall be the same....". 13. Article 61 Since there is nothing similar to a state of war,"similar emergency conditions" should be amended to read "other serious emergency situation".

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Brussels, 13 August 1973 M / 40 Original: English

PREPARATORY DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: The United Kingdom Government

Subject: Proposed amendments concerning the Draft Convention, the Draft Implementing Regulations, the Draft Protocol on Recognition and the Draft Protocol on Privileges and Immunities

Page 29

7. Article 38, par. 4:

Certain international applications (PCT-applications) in respect of which a Contracting State is designated, will not be communicated (under article 20 of the PCT-Treaty) to that State because of a withdrawal of its designation or will not reach that State when the applicant does not furnish a copy of the international application under Article 22 PCT. In our opinion those international applications cannot be taken into account for the purpose of paragraph 3 of Article 38. Therefore we propose to read paragraph 4 of Article 38 as follows: "For the purpose of paragraph 3 international applications received by any State as designated State shall be regarded as applications filed in that State." 8. Article 50, par. 3:

In order to avoid the possibility that this paragraph is interpreted to exclude a contrario the patentability of any product other than a substance or composition for use in therapeutical treatment (like a medical instrument), we propose to draft Article 50, par. 3, as follows: "The provision of paragraph 2(d) does not exclude the patentability of any product, in particular any substance or composition, for use in a method referred to in that provision". 9. Article 52, par. 5:

We are of the opinion that Article 52, par. 5, without changing its meaning, can be clarified and lined up with the provision of Article 50, par. 3, as follows: "The provisions of par. 1-4 shall not exclude the patentability of any substance or composition, disclosed as such in the state of the art, for use in a method referred to in Article 50, par. 2(d), provided that its use for no such method has been disclosed in the state of the art." 10. Article 59:

The title seems to connect this Article 59 with Article 56, whereas in fact Article 59 is related to the matter dealt with

Page 30

European Patent Office. We assume that in such case the translation shall have to be submitted to the applicant for approval. As, therefore, the applicant has in any case to be confronted with the translation, we propose to go a step further and to shift the burden and the responsibility for the translation entirely to the applicant by obliging him to submit such translation just as he has to submit the translations provided for in Article 63. We propose to insert in Article 96, par. 2,a stipulation to the effect that the applicant has to submit the required translation of the claims within the time limit foreseen for the payment of the fees for grant and printing. 4. Article 19, par. 3(a) and par. 4(a):

In our view the stipulation that the Board of Appeal shall be assisted by a rapporteur (not taking part in the decision) constitutes an unnecessary complication of the procedure. It seems to be sufficient that the Board has the opportunity to designate one of the three members who constitute the Board to act as rapporteur which would be in line with the solution found for the Examining and Opposition Divisions. As this seems to be a matter for the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Appeal, we simply propose to cancel in both paragraphs the words "assisted by a technically qualified member who shall act as rapporteur but shall not take part in the decision". 5. Article 23:

In our opinion this article should be qualified by the stipulation that the partners concerned shall have the possibility to explain their view points before the Division which is responsible for the issue of the technical opinion. 6. Article 38, par. 3(b):

Generally it will be difficult to establish with certainty the nationality of the persons who file patent applications. We propose to replace the term "nationals" by "residents".

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Brussels, 1 June 1973 M/32 Original: English

Drawn up by: Netherlands Government

Subject: Observations and proposed amendments concerning the Draft Convention and the Draft Implementing Regulations

Page 32

(4) Für die Anwendung des Absatzes 3 werden den in einem Staat eingereichten Anmeldungen die internationalen Anmeldungen gleichgestellt, für die dieser Staat benannt ist. (5) Kann für einen Vertragsstaat ein Beteiligungssatz nicht nach den Absätzen 3 und 4 ermittelt werden, so legt ihn der Verwaltungsrat im Einvernehmen mit diesem Staat fest. (6) Artikel 37 Absätze 3 und 4 ist auf die besonderen Finanzbeiträge entsprechend anzuwenden. (7) Die besonderen Finanzbeiträge werden mit Zinsen zu einem Satz zurückgezahlt, der für alle Vertragsstaaten einheitlich ist. Die Rückzahlungen erfolgen, soweit zu diesem Zweck Mittel im Haushaltsplan bereitgestellt werden können; der bereitgestellte Betrag wird nach dem in den Absätzen 3 und 5 vorgesehenen Aufbringungsschlüssel auf die Vertragsstaaten verteilt. (8) Die in einem bestimmten Haushaltsjahr gezahlten besonderen Finanzbeiträge müssen in vollem Umfang zurückgezahlt sein, bevor in späteren Haushaltsjahren gezahlte besondere Finanzbeiträge ganz oder teilweise zurückgezahlt werden.

Artikel 39

Vorschüsse (1) Die Vertragsstaaten gewähren der Organisation auf Antrag des Präsidenten des Europäischen Patentamts Vorschüsse auf ihre Zahlungen und Beiträge in der vom Verwaltungsrat festgesetzten Höhe. Diese Vorschüsse werden auf die Vertragsstaaten im Verhältnis der Beträge, die von diesen Staaten für das betreffende Haushaltsjahr zu zahlen sind, aufgeteilt. (2) Artikel 37 Absätze 3 und 4 ist auf die Vorschüsse entsprechend anzuwenden.

Artikel 40

Haushaltsplan (1) Alle Einnahmen und Ausgaben der Organisation werden für jedes Haushaltsjahr veranschlagt und in den Haushaltsplan eingesetzt. Falls erforderlich können Be-richtigungs- und Nachtragshaushaltspläne festgestellt werden. (2) Der Haushaltsplan ist in Einnahmen und Ausgaben auszugleichen. (3) Der Haushaltsplan wird in der Rechnungseinheit aufgestellt, die in der Finanzordnung bestimmt wird. (4) For the purpose of paragraph 3 international applications in respect of which any State is designated shall be regarded as applications filed in that State. (5) Where, in respect of any Contracting State, its scale position cannot be established in accordance with paragraph 3, the Administrative Council shall, with the consent of that State, decide its scale position. (6) Article 37, paragraphs 3 and 4, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the special financial contributions. (7) The special financial contributions shall be repaid together with interest at a rate the same for all Contracting States. Repayments shall be made in so far as it is possible to provide for this purpose in the budget; the amount thus provided shall be distributed among the Contracting States in accordance with the scale mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 5 above. (8) The special financial contributions remitted in any accounting period shall be wholly repaid before any such contributions or parts thereof remitted in any subsequent accounting period are repaid.

Article 39

Advances (1) At the request of the President of the European Patent Office, the Contracting States shall make advances to the Organisation, on account of their payments and contributions, within the limit of the amount fixed by the Administrative Council. Such advances shall be apportioned in proportion to the amounts due by the Contracting States for the accounting period in question. (2) Article 37, paragraphs 3 and 4, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the advances.

Budget

(1) Income and expenditure of the Organisation shall form the subject of estimates in respect of each accounting period and shall be shown in the budget. If necessary, there may be amending or supplementary budgets. (2) The budget shall be balanced as between income and expenditure. (3) The budget shall be drawn up in the unit of account fixed in the Financial Regulations.

Artikel 37

Zahlungen der Vertragsstaaten aufgrund der für die Aufrechterhaltung der europäischen Patente erhobenen Gebühren (1) Jeder Vertragsstaat zahlt an die Organisation für jedes in diesem Staat aufrechterhaltene europäische Patent einen Betrag in Höhe eines vom Verwaltungsrat festzusetzenden Anteils an der Jahresgebühr, der 75 % nicht übersteigen darf und für alle Vertragsstaaten gleich ist. Liegt der Betrag unter einem vom Verwaltungsrat festgesetzten einheitlichen Mindestbetrag, so hat der betreffende Vertragsstaat der Organisation diesen Mindestbetrag zu zahlen. (2) Jeder Vertragsstaat teilt der Organisation alle Angaben mit, die der Verwaltungsrat für die Feststellung der Höhe dieser Zahlungen für notwendig erachtet. (3) Die Fälligkeit der Zahlungen wird vom Verwaltungsrat festgelegt. (4) Sind die genannten Zahlungen nicht fristgerecht in voller Höhe geleistet worden, so hat der Vertragsstaat den ausstehenden Betrag vom Fälligkeitstag an zu verzinsen.

Artikel 38

Bemessung der Gebühren und Anteile besondere Finanzbeiträge (1) Die Höhe der Gebühren nach Artikel 36 und der Anteil nach Artikel 37 sind so zu bemessen, daß die Einnahmen hieraus den Ausgleich des Haushalts der Organisation gewährleisten. (2) Ist die Organisation jedoch nicht in der Lage, den Haushaltsplan nach Maßgabe des Absatzes 1 auszugleichen, so zahlen die Vertragsstaaten der Organisation besondere Finanzbeiträge, deren Höhe der Verwaltungsrat für das betreffende Haushaltsjahr festsetzt. (3) Die besonderen Finanzbeiträge werden für jeden Vertragsstaat auf der Grundlage der Anzahl der Patentanmeldungen des vorletzten Jahrs vor dem Inkrafttreten dieses Übereinkommens nach folgendem Aufbringungsschlüssel festgelegt: a) zur Hälfte im Verhältnis zur Zahl der in jedem Vertragsstaat eingereichten Patentanmeldungen; b) zur Hälfte im Verhältnis zu der zweithöchsten Zahl der Patentanmeldungen, die von den Staatsangehörigen eines jeden Vertragsstaats in den anderen Vertragsstaaten eingereicht werden. Die Beträge, die von den Staaten zu tragen sind, in denen mehr als 25.000 Patentanmeldungen eingereicht werden, werden jedoch zusammengefaßt und erneut im Verhältnis zu der Gesamtzahl der in diesen Staaten eingereichten Patentanmeldungen aufgeteilt.

Article 37

Payments by the Contracting States in respect of renewal fees for European patents (1) Each Contracting State shall pay to the Organisation in respect of each renewal fee received for a European patent in that State an amount equal to a proportion of that fee, to be fixed by the Administrative Council; the proportion shall not exceed 75 per cent and shall be the same for all Contracting States. However, if the said proportion corresponds to an amount which is less than a uniform minimum amount fixed by the Administrative Council, the Contracting State shall pay that minimum to the Organisation. (2) Each Contracting State shall communicate to the Organisation such information as the Administrative Council considers to be necessary to determine the amount of its payments. (3) The due dates for these payments shall be determined by the Administrative Council. (4) If a payment is not remitted fully by the due date, the Contracting State shall pay interest from the due date on the amount remaining unpaid.

Article 38

Level of fees and payments - Special financial contributions (1) The amounts of the fees referred to under Article 36 and the proportion referred to under Article 37 shall be fixed at such a level as to ensure that the revenue in respect thereof is sufficient for the budget of the Organisation to be balanced. (2) However, if the Organisation is unable to balance its budget under the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, the Contracting States shall remit to the Organisation special financial contributions, the amount of which shall be determined by the Administrative Council for the accounting period in question. (3) These special financial contributions shall be determined in respect of each Contracting State on the basis of the number of patent applications filed in the last year but one prior to that of entry into force of this Convention, and calculated in the following manner: (a) one half in proportion to the number of patent applications filed in each Contracting State; (b) one half in proportion to the second highest number of patent applications filed by the nationals of each Contracting State in the other Contracting States.

However, the amounts to be contributed by States in which the number of patent applications filed exceeds 25,000 shall then be taken as a whole and a new scale drawn up determined in proportion to the total number of patent applications filed in these States.

PROJET DE CONVENTION

INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS

ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS 1973

(München, 10. September bis 6. Oktober 1973)

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS, 1973 (Munich, 10 September to 6 October 1973)

CONFERENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH

POUR L'INSTITUTION D'UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS (1973) (Munich, 10 septembre - 6 octobre 1973)

VORBEREITENDE DOKUMENTE

ausgearbeitet von der Regierungskonferenz über die Einführung eines europäischen Patenterteilungsverfahrens herausgegeben von der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

PREPARATORY DOCUMENTS

drawn up by the Inter-Governmental Conference for the setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents and published by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

DOCUMENTS PRÉPARATOIRES

élaborés par la Conférence intergouvernementale pour l'institution d'un système européen de délivrance de brevets et publiés par le Gouvernement de la République fédérale d'Allemagne

Page 36

129. A decision was first taken on the voting procedure, two procedural proposals being rejected by a majority:

- a proposal from the Swedish delegation to start with the third variant and then to vote on the second variant and finally on the first variant, if necessary; - a proposal from the Netherlands delegation, first of all to eliminate the variant which obtained the smallest number of votes and then to vote a second time as between the two remaining variants.

The Conference decided by a majority to vote on the variants in the order 1-2-3. 130. The voting did not give a 2 / 3 majority for the first or for the second variant, but did give this majority for the third variant, which was therefore adopted. 131. The Italian delegation stated that it agreed with the reduction of the figure for applications in the last year but one prior to the entry into force of the Convention, from 30,000 to 25,000 , as proposed by Working Party IV. 132. The drafting of paragraph 3 as thus adopted was improved by converting two sentences into separate paragraphs (new paragraphs 4 and 5).

Article 39 133. The Conference decided, on a proposal from the German delegation (cf. Working Document No. 9), that the advances provided for in Article 39 should attract interest. Consequently, a new paragraph 2 was introduced, which refers to Article 37, paragraph 4.

Page 37

Apart from those dealt with below, the Conference approved these provisions without discussion.

Article 36

126. It was unanimously agreed that the Organisation's orm resources referred to in Article 36 also included the taxes to be levied on the salaries of employees of the Furopean Patent Office.

Article 38

127. The Conference had to decide which of the three variants for the scale of contributions and repayments, given under Article 38, paragraph 3, the effects of which can be seen from Annexes 27, 27a and 27b to the Financial Report, were to be submitted to the Diplomatic Conference as a solution. The suggestion of the Turkish delegation, that this question should be left open for the Diplomatic Conference, found no support. 128. Prior to the vote on this question, many delegations referred once more to the advantages and disadvantages which in their opinion were associated with the individual variants. In this connection, the third variant (consideration of the number of patent applications and of the potential use made of the Furopean Patent Office, token half and half) was generally considered to be a compromise solution, lying between the first variant which was generally more favourable for the larger States and the second variant, which was generally more favourable for the smaller States.

Page 38

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 26 September 1972 BR/219/72

M I N U T E S of the

6th meeting of the Inter-Governmental Conference for the setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents (Luxembourg, 19 to 30 June 1972)

Page 39

Article 38 (continued) (5) The special financial contributions shall be repaid together with interest at a rate the same for all Contracting States and to be prescribed in the Financial Regulations. Repayments shall be made in so far as it is possible to provide for this purpose in the budget; the amount thus provided shall be distributed among the Contracting States in accordance with the scale mentioned in paragraph 3 above. (6) The special financial contributions remitted in any accounting period shall be wholly repaid before any contributions or parts thereof remitted in any subsequent accounting period are repaid.

Page 40

Article 38 (continued)

2nd variant

These special financial contributions shall be determined in respect of each Contracting State on the basis of the number of patent applications filed in the last year but one prior to that of entry into force of this Convention, and calculated in the following manner:

(a) one quarter [one half] in proportion to the number of patent applications filed in each Contracting State;

(b) three-quarters [one half] in proportion to the second highest number of patent applications filed by the nationals of each Contracting State in the other Contracting States.

However, the amounts to be contributed by States in which the number of patent applications exceeds 25,000 shall then be taken as a whole and a new scale drawn up determined in proportion to the total number of patent applications filed in these States. For the purpose of this paragraph, international applications in respect of which any State is designated shall be regarded as applications filed in that State.

Where, in respect of any Contracting State, its scale position cannot be established in accordance with these criteria the Administrative Council shall, with the consent of that State, decide its scale position.

(4) Article 37, paragraphs 4 and 5, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the special financial contributions.

Page 41

Article 38 (44) Level of fees and payments - Special financial contributions (1) The amounts of the fees referred to under Article 36 and the proportion referred to under Article 37 shall be fixed at such a level as to ensure that the revenue in respect thereof is sufficient for the budget of the Organisation to be balanced. (2) However, if the Organisation is unable to balance its budget under the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, the Contracting States shall remit to the Organisation special financial contributions, the amount of which shall be determined by the Administrative Council for the accounting period in question. (3) 1st variant

The amounts of these special financial contributions shall be determined in accordance with a scale directly proportional to the number of patent applications filed in the respective Contracting States during the last year but one prior to that of entry into force of this Convention. For this purpose, international applications in respect of which any State is designated shall be regarded as applications filed in that State. Where, in respect of any Contracting State, its scale position cannot be established in accordance with these criteria the Administrative Council shall, with the consent of that State, decide its scale position.

Page 42

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE	Brussels, 25 May 1972
FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN	BR/199/72
SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Secretariat -

Deutsche Patentamt
Eing. 31. MA1 372
122
624/72

ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM

FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS (Stage reached on 20 May 1972)

Page 43

proportional to the total number of applications in each participating country for the year before the entry into force of the Convention. The second provided for rather lower contributions for countries with less patenting activity adjusted to eliminate distorted figures at the top of the scale.

The Netherlands Delegation put forward a third variant based on the interim scale established by the PCT. Objections, however, were raised to this as this scale was specially introduced in order to deal with certain problems of countries in other continents and was only of a provisional nature. The Conference was grateful to the Netherlands Delegation for initiating a discussion on the subject but did not feel able to accept its proposal as a possible variant.

It was agreed by the Conference that the two variants proposed by the Working Party should both be retained in the draft for further consideration with the addition that a further alternative in the second variant was added giving the option of 1 / 2 each in (a) and (b) instead of 1 / 4 and 3 / 4. The Conference will try to take a decision on this matter by its last Meeting, to be held in June 1972, before the Diplomatic Conference.

Article 50 ( Auditing of accounts) 163. The Netherlands Delegation proposed that it should be made clear in paragraph (1) that the Audit Board could

Page 44

French Delegation stated that this question was being studied in all Ministries of Finance, especially in France but there were also other possibilities being studied by the French Government which the wording should be wide enough to cover. It was agreed that whether or not there should be an internal tax was a matter for discussion in connection with the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities.

Article 42b (Payment by the Contracting States in respect of renewal fees for European Patents) 161. The question was raised as to the treatment of contributions already paid by a State which withdraws from the Convention, both in respect of contributions paid and future renewal fees. There was also the question of contributions payable by States which join the negotiations such as Monaco and Yugoslavia or which accede to the Convention after the date of its entry into force. The Conference agreed that this whole question should be referred back to Working Party IV which was invited to report in time for the final session of the Conference in June 1972.

Article 42c (Level of fees and payments - special financial contributions) 162. A point of particular difficulty was the special financial contributions to be paid by the Member States and the Working Party had adopted two variants for the consideration of the Conference. The first was a simple scale

Page 45

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 7 July 1971 B R / 125 / 71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES of the 4th Meeting of the Inter-Governmental Conference for the setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents (Luxembourg, 20 to 28 April 1971)

Page 46

Article 42c continued: (4) Article 42b, paragraphs 5 and 6, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the special financial contributions. (5) The special financial contributions shall be repaid together with interest at a rate to be prescribed in the Financial Regulations. Repayments shall be made in so far as it is possible to provide for this purpose in the budget, and the amount thus provided shall be distributed among the Contracting States in accordance with the scale mentioned in paragraph 3 above. (6) The special financial contributions remitted in any accounting period shall be wholly repaid before any contributions or parts thereof remitted in any subsequent accounting period are repaid.

Page 47

Article 42c Level of fees and payments - special financial contributions (1) The amounts of the fees referred to under Article 42a and the proportion referred to under Article 42b shall be fixed at such a level as to ensure that the revenue in respect thereof is sufficient for the budget of the European Patent Office to be balanced. (2) However, if the European Patent Office is unable to balance its budget under the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, the Contracting States shall remit to the European Patent Office special financial contributions, the amount of which shall be determined by the Administrative Council for the budgetary period in question. (3) 1st variant :

The amounts of these special financial contributions shall be determined in accordance with a scale directly proportional to the number of patent applications filed in, or in respect of, the respective Contracting States during the last year but one prior to the date of entry into force of the Convention.

2nd variant :

These special financial contributions shall be determined in respect of each Contracting State on the basis of the number of patent applications filed in the last year but one prior to the date of entry into force of this Convention, and calculated in the following manner : (a) one quarter in proportion to the number of patent applications filed in each Contracting State; (b) three quarters in proportion to the second highest number of patent applications filed by the nationals of each Contracting State in the other Contracting States.

However, the amounts to be contributed by States in which the number of patent applications exceeds 30,000 shall then be taken as a whole and a new scale drawn up determined in proportion to the total number of patent applications filed in these States.

Page 48

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 15th February 1971 B R / 88 / 71

- Secretariat -

FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Stage reached on 29 January 1971 -

Page 49

Finally, the Working Party accepted the Chairman's suggestion, it being understood that the decision of the Administrative Council must be arrived at by a three-quarters majority. It stressed, however, that this solution contained elements of uncertainty and that it had recorded its agreement on this only because a better solution had not been forthcoming. Finally, the Working Party expressed itself in favour of the French delegation's comment that Liechtenstein's contribution should be of the same order of magnitude as that of Monaco.

At drafting level, the Working Party's decision involves amendments to the following Articles:

- Article 35b, paragraph 2 - Article 35n, paragraph 1(b) - Article 44, paragraph 3, 1st variant (end) - Article 44, paragraph 3, 2nd variant (end) (c) Paragraph 5

9. See point 21 below with regard to the amendment to paragraph 5.

Article 52b (Auditing of accounts) 10. In accordance with the Conference's instructions, the Working Party revised this Article by substituting "auditors" for "Audit Board". This amendment involved the deletion of the last part of the second sentence of paragraph 2. Furthermore, taking into account a comment

Page 50

the provisions at present laid down in paragraph 3, which are based on the number of applications filed in each Contracting State, being inapplicable since patent applications may not be filed in Liechtenstein (cf. the document submitted by the Liechtenstein delegation, BR/GT IV/47/72).

The President suggested (BR/GT IV/52/72) having recourse to a general provision laying down that, when the contribution rate of a Contracting State cannot be determined on the basis of the criteria referred to in the two variants of Article 44, paragraph 3, the Administrative Council should fix that rate in conjunction with the State concerned.

This solution, although involving the disadvantage that Liechtenstein would ascertain the rate of its contribution only when agreement had been reached with the Administrative Council, appeared to the Working Party to be preferable to the solutions whereby the rate applicable to Liechtenstein would be deduced as a percentage of that applicable to Switzerland, or whereby Liechtenstein would be made responsible for a share of the contribution paid by Switzerland.

The German delegation subscribed to this view. The French delegation, although maintaining some misgivings as to a system which gave the Administrative Council the power to fix this rate, supported the Chairman's suggestion. The Spanish delegation, which had originally come out in favour of an agreement between Liechtenstein and Switzerland with a view to dividing the contribution between them, also supported this position.

Page 51

The Working Party noted that a situation of this kind could arise in the case of Italy. At the time of the drafting of Article 44 in 1970, the Working Party had estimated that the number of requests would, in any event, remain above 30,000 each year. This basic assumption having become doubtful by reason of the general trend in the number of requests, it would be necessary to lower the threshold to 25,000 applications to arrive at the same situation as that originally envisaged.

Furthermore, it was noted that the percentages resulting from the application of Article 44, paragraph 3, could be decisive neither for Italy nor for any other Member State of the European Economic Community, if all expenditure of those States was, as could be the case in the Second Convention, charged to the Community budget.

Finally, the Working Party decided to fix the threshold in question at 25,000 applications filed in the last year but one prior to that of the entry into force of the Convention. It instructed the Secretariat to draw the attention of the Italian delegation to this amendment to Article 44, paragraph 3, 2nd variant. (b) Bate of contribution for certain Contracting States (paragraph 3) 8. The Working Party examined the question as to which method should be followed in determining the rate of special financial contributions in respect of Liechtenstein,

Page 52

I.

Revision of the financial Articles (Item 2 on the agenda)

Article 14 (Level of fees and payments - Special financial contributions) (a) Paragraph 3, 2nd variant

6 . Referring to its mandate ( BR / 125 / 71, point 162 , last paragraph and point 164 (b)), the Working Party considered that the question whether the 2nd variant of paragraph 3 of this Article should be amended by replacing the proportions of one quarter and three-quarters referred to under (a) and (b) respectively by the words "one half", was of a political nature and, hence, should be dealt with at Conference level. It was agreed to include calculations relating to both hypotheses in Annexes 27a and b.

7 . The Working Party also discussed whether it would be appropriate to substitute a threshold of 25,000 applications for the threshold of 30,000 applications, in order to ensure a degree of stability in the implementation of the provision contained in the final part of the 2nd variant, i.e. the break-down of "second-line" contributions.

In fact, the situation should be avoided in which a slight reduction in the number of applications filed in a Member State, which could occur before the last year but one prior to that of entry into force of the Convention, would entail non-application of the provision in question as far as that State was concerned.

Page 53

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 11th April 1972 B R / 178 / 72

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

of the 4th meeting of Working Party IV (Luxembourg, 22 to 24 February 1972)

1. Working Party IV held its 4th meeting at Luxembourg from 22 to 24 February 1972, with Mr E. ARMITAGE, ComptrollerGeneral of the Patent Office, London, in the Chair.

A representative of the International Patent Institute at The Hague attended the meeting as an observer. Representatives of WIPO, the Commission of the European Communities and the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe sent their apologies for being unable to be present. (1) 2. The Working Party adopted the provisional agenda contained in BR/GT IV/46/72. (1) The list of participants is annexed.

Page 54

(4) Artikel 43 Absätze 5 und 6 ist auf die besonderen Finanzbeiträge entsprechend anzuwenden. (5) Die besonderen Finanzbeiträge werden mit Zinsen zu einem Zinssatz zurückgezahlt, der in der Finanzordnung festgelegt wird. Die Rückzahlungen erfolgen, insoweit zu diesem Zweck Mittel im Haushaltsplan bereitgestellt werden können; der bereitgestellte Betrag wird nach dem in Absatz 3 vorgesehenen Aufbringungsschlüssel auf die Vertragsstaaten verteilt. (6) Die in einem bestimmten Haushaltsjahr gezahlten besonderen Finanzbeiträge müssen in vollem Umfang zurückgezahlt sein, bevor in späteren Haushaltsjahren gezahlte besondere Finanzbeiträge ganz oder teilweise zurückgezahlt werden.

Artikel 45

Vorschüsse Die Vertragsstaaten gewähren auf Antrag des Europäischen Patentamts Vorschüsse auf ihre Zahlungen und Beiträge im Rahmen des vom Verwaltungsrat anerkannten Bedarfs. Diese Vorschüsse werden auf die Vertragsstaaten im Verhältnis der Beträge, die von diesen Staaten für das betreffende Haushaltsjahr zu zahlen sind, aufgeteilt.

Artikel 46

Mittel für unvorhergesehene Ausgaben (1) Im Haushaltsplan des Europäischen Patentamts können Mittel für unvorhergesehene Ausgaben veranschlagt werden. (2) Die Verwendung dieser Mittel durch das Europäische Patentamt setzt einen vorherigen Beschluß des Verwaltungsrats voraus.

Artikel 47

Haushaltsplan (1) Alle Einnahmen und Ausgaben des Europäischen Patentamts werden für jedes Haushaltsjahr veranschlagt und in den Haushaltsplan eingesetzt. (2) Der Haushaltsplan ist in Einnahmen und Ausgaben auszugleichen.

Artikel 48

Bewilligung der Ausgaben (1) Die in den Haushaltsplan eingesetzten Ausgaben werden für ein Haushaltsjahr bewilligt, soweit die Finanzordnung nichts anderes bestimmt. (4) Article 43, paragraphs 5 and 6, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the special financial contributions. (5) The special financial contributions shall be repaid together with interest at a rate to be prescribed in the Financial Regulations. Repayments shall be made in so far as it is possible to provide for this purpose in the budget, and the amount thus provided shall be distributed among the Contracting States in accordance with the scale mentioned in paragraph 3 above. (6) The special financial contributions remitted in any accounting period shall be wholly repaid before any contributions or parts thereof remitted in any subsequent accounting period are repaid.

Article 45

Advances At the request of the European Patent Office, the Contracting States shall make advances, on account of their payments and contributions, to meet a need previously recognised by the Administrative Council. Such advances shall be apportioned in proportion to the amounts estimated to be due by the Contracting States for the accounting period in question.

Article 46

Appropriations for unforeseeable expenditure (1) The budget of the European Patent Office may contain appropriations for unforeseeable expenditure. (2) The employment of these appropriations by the European Patent Office is subject to a prior decision by the Administrative Council.

Budget

(1) Income and expenditure of the European Patent Office shall form the subject of estimates in respect of each accounting period and shall be shown in the budget. (2) The budget shall be balanced as between income and expenditure.

Authorisation for expenditure

(1) The expenditure entered in the budget shall be authorised for the duration of one accounting period, unless any provisions to the contrary are contained in the Financial Regulations.

Page 55

(4) Die Vertragsstaaten teilen dem Europäischen Patentamt alle Angaben mit, die der Verwaltungsrat für die Feststellung der Höhe dieser Zahlungen für notwendig erachtet. (5) Die Fälligkeit der Zahlungen wird vom Verwaltungsrat festgelegt. (6) Sind die genannten Zahlungen nicht fristgerecht in voller Höhe geleistet worden, so hat der Vertragsstaat den ausstehenden Betrag vom Fälligkeitstag an zu verzinsen. Der Zinssatz wird in der Finanzordnung festgelegt.

Artikel 44

Bemessung der Gebühren und Anteile - besondere Finanzbeiträge (1) Die Höhe der Gebühren nach Artikel 42 und der Anteil nach Artikel 43 sind so zu bemessen, daß die Einnahmen hieraus den Ausgleich des Haushalts des Europäischen Patentamts gewährleisten. (2) Ist das Europäische Patentamt jedoch nicht in der Lage, den Haushaltsplan gemäß Absatz 1 auszugleichen, so zahlen die Vertragsstaaten dem Europäischen Patentamt besondere Finanzbeiträge, deren Höhe der Verwaltungsrat für das betreffende Haushaltsjahr festsetzt.

(3) 1. Fassung

Die besonderen Finanzbeiträge werden nach einem Aufbringungsschlüssel festgelegt, der in direktem Verhältnis zu der Anzahl der Patentanmeldungen steht, die in den einzelnen Vertragsstaaten im vorletzten Jahr vor dem Inkrafttreten dieses Übereinkommens eingereicht worden sind. Hierbei werden den in einem Staat eingereichten Anmeldungen die internationalen Anmeldungen gleichgestellt, für die dieser Staat benannt ist.

2. Fassung

Die besonderen Finanzbeiträge werden für jeden Vertragsstaat auf der Grundlage der Patentanmeldezahlen des vorletzten Jahres vor dem Inkrafttreten dieses Übereinkommens nach folgendem Aufbringungsschlüssel festgelegt: a) zu einem Viertel [zur Hälfte] im Verhältnis zur Zahl der in jedem Vertragsstaat eingereichten Patentanmeldungen; b) zu drei Vierteln [zur Hälfte] im Verhältnis zu der zweithöchsten Zahl der Patentanmeldungen, die von den Staatsangehörigen eines jeden Vertragsstaats in den anderen Vertragsstaaten eingereicht werden. Die Beträge, die von den Staaten zu tragen sind, in denen mehr als 30000 Patente angemeldet werden, werden jedoch zusammengefaßt und erneut im Verhältnis zu der Gesamtzahl der in diesen Staaten eingereichten Patentanmeldungen aufgeteilt. Im Sinne dieses Absatzes werden den in einem Staat eingereichten Anmeldungen die internationalen Anmeldungen gleichgestellt, für die dieser Staat benannt ist. (4) Each Contracting State shall communicate to the European Patent Office such information as the Administrative Council considers to be necessary to determine the amount of its payments. (5) The due dates for these payments shall be determined by the Administrative Council. (6) If a payment is not remitted fully by the due date, the Contracting State shall pay interest from the due date on the amount remaining unpaid. The rate of interest shall be prescribed in the Financial Regulations.

Article 44

Level of fees and payments-Special financial contributions (1) The amounts of the fees referred to under Article 42 and the proportion referred to under Article 43 shall be fixed at such a level as to ensure that the revenue in respect thereof is sufficient for the budget of the European Patent Office to be balanced. (2) However, if the European Patent Office is unable to balance its budget under the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, the Contracting States shall remit to the European Patent Office special financial contributions, the amount of which shall be determined by the Administrative Council for the budgetary period in question. (3) Ist variant:

The amounts of these special financial contributions shall be determined in accordance with a scale directly proportional to the number of patent applications filed in the respective Contracting States during the last year but one prior to that of entry into force of the Convention. For this purpose, international applications in respect of which any State is designated shall be regarded as applications filed in that State.

2nd variant

These special financial contributions shall be determined in respect of each Contracting State on the basis of the number of patent applications filed in the last year but one prior to that of entry into force of this Convention, and calculated in the following manner: (a) one quarter [one half] in proportion to the number of patent applications filed in each Contracting State; (b) three-quarters [one half] in proportion to the second highest number of patent applications filed by the nationals of each Contracting State in the other Contracting States. However, the amounts to be contributed by States in which the number of patent applications exceeds 30,000 shall then be taken as a whole and a new scale drawn up determined in proportion to the total number of patent applications filed in these States. For the purpose of this paragraph, international applications in respect of which any State is designated shall be regarded as applications filed in that State.

ZWEITER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

SECOND PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

SECOND AVANT-PROJET DE CONVENTION INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS

Page 57

REGIERUNGSKONFERENZ ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS CONFERENCE INTERGOUVERNEMENTALE POUR L'INSTITUTION D'UN SYSTEME EUROPEEN DE DELIVRANCE DE BREVETS

ZWEITER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

sowie ERSTER VORENTWURF EINER AUSFÜHRUNGSORDNUNG ZUM ÜBEREINKOMMEN ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN und ERSTER VORENTWURF EINER GEBÜHRENORDNUNG

SECOND PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

with FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS TO THE CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS and FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE RULES RELATING TO FEES

SECOND AVANT-PROJET DE CONVENTION INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS

ainsi que PREMIER AVANT-PROJET DE RÈGLEMENT D'EXÉCUTION DE LA CONVENTION INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS. et PREMIER AVANT-PROJET DE RÈGLEMENT RELATIF AUX TAXES

Page 58

Article 21g - Transitional period 23. This Article was incorporated in the new Article 42c (see 17 above) by the Working Party and is therefore deleted here.

Article 43 - Budget 24. No comments

Article 44 - Authorisation for expenditure 25. In this Article, as in other Articles in which the Financial Regulations are mentioned, the Working Party decided to delete the reference to Article 53 as superfluous. 26. Paragraph 2 was amended to the effect that the carrying forward of unexpended appropriations is to be done in accordance with the Financial Regulations.

Article 45 - Financial year 27. No comments.

Article 46 - Draft Budget 28. The Working Party adopted the text contained in BR/GT IV/31/70, subject to a correction to the English text.

Article 47 - Adoption of the budget 29. No comments

Page 59

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 27 November 1970 BR/GT IV/41/70

- Secretariat -

MINUTES of the third meeting of Working Party IV (Luxembourg, 13-15 October 1970)

1. The third meeting of Working Party IV was held in Luxembourg, from 13 to 15 October 1970, with Mr. E. ARMITAGE, Comptroller General, Patent Office, London, in the Chair.

The representatives of the International Patent Institute at The Hague and of WIPO/BIRPI took part in the meeting as observers. The representative of the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe apologised for his absence. (1)

2. The Working Party began by examining, on the basis of various working documents (BR/GT IV/31/70 and BR/GT IV/36/70 with Addendum), the financial provisions of the First Preliminary Draft Convention establishing a European System for the Grant of Patents (Articles 42-53 and Article 187). It adopted these provisions as set out in BR/56/70.

(1) The list of participants is given in the Annex.

BR/GT IV/41 e/70 lor/RT/fm

.../...

Text drawn up by the Drafting Committee of Working Party IV

(1) Throughout the period during which the amount of the payments made by the Contracting States in respect of renewals of European patents is insufficient to ensure a balanced budget, the European Patent Office shall have recourse to the methods of financing laid down in Article 42d. (2) The contributions thus made available by Contracting States to the European Patent Office, together with the corresponding interest, the rate of which shall be laid down in the Financial Regulations, shall be repaid to the Contracting States in as far as the revenue referred to in Article 42(a) and 42(b) is sufficient to provide the necessary budget surplus.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

1. Articles 43 to 53 and 187 were approved in principle by Working Party IV at its meeting of 6 to 9 July 1970 - subject to such redrafting as might be required, especially in the light of the final version of Articles 42 to 42 g .

As regards the first-mentioned Articles, Working Party IV has not yet dealt with Article 48(3) and Article 53d. 2. Articles 42 to 42 g have been drawn up by the drafting Committee of Working Party IV, but have not yet been re-examined by the Working Party itself.

Page 62

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 14 July 1970 BR/GT IV/31/70

- Secretariat -

PRELIMINARY DRAFT CONVENTION FOR A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Articles 42 to 42 g, 43 to 53 and 187

Texts either approved in principle by Working Party IV or drawn up by its Drafting Committee (meeting 6 to 9 July 1970) compared synoptically with the financial provisions of the Draft Convention relating to a European Patent Law as drafted by the EEC "Patents" Working Party

BR/GT IV/31 e/70 rti/PB/sw

Page 63

17. The Working Party did not feel it necessary for the Convention to contain a special provision for the first few years of operation of the European Patent Office, as had previously been contained in Article 42g. In paragraph 5 of the new Article 42c, the Working Party laid down the obligation of the European Patent Office to pay interest on the special financial contributions of the Contracting States in such a way as to make it applicable in all cases in which special financial contributions are made. 18. With regard to the repayment of financial contributions, the Working Party felt it expedient to make a new provision, under which contributions made earlier must be repaid before contributions made later may be repaid (new paragraph 6).

Article 420 (now Article 42d) - Advances 19. In the view of the Working Party it is reasonable that the European Patent Office should be able to demand advances not only on the special financial contributions of the Contracting States, but also on the payments which they are to make under Article 42b. The European Patent Office needs, particularly later when there are no special financial contributions to be paid, may be subject to shortterm financial needs especially in the case of the due dates for payment laid down by the Administrative Council not being observed. The Working Party agreed that the advances should not necessarily be requested in the same budgetary period as that in respect of which the appropriations had been made, but in the interest of smooth transition from one budgetary period to the next they might be requested and granted in the previous year.

Page 64

scale. The French delegation reserved its position on this point.

The Luxembourg delegation reserved the right to submit its proposal to the Conference in the event of the scale of contributions set out under 13 not being accepted. 15. The Working Party was also concerned to formulate Article 42 c in such a way as not to rule out separate allocation of contributions within a group of States. 16. The question was also raised in the Working Party as to whether the scale of contributions could be amended once the Convention had come into force, and if so, by what means. No delegation denied that it might be expedient to make provision for some means of amendment. In this context, it was suggested that the Administrative Council should examine the contribution scales periodically. In the view of one delegation, the Administrative Council should be able to amend the scale of contributions by a unanimous decision.

The Working Party did not adopt any final decision on this point. It merely observed that the scale of contributions should not be valid only for the first few years of operation of the European Patent Office, during which the income from fees and payments would not rench a sufficient level to cover the expenditure of the European Patent Office.

Page 65

earlier proposal by the Spanish delegation (BR/GT IV/28/70). According to this variant, one quarter of the scale of contributions is to be calculated in proportion to the number of patent applications, and three-quarters in proportion to the estimated number of applications for European patents in accordance with the "Three States" theory; for both elements, the relevant figures would be those for the last year but one prior to the date of entry into force of the Convention. The contribution rates calculated in this way would, however, be re-allocated for States with more than 30,000 applications per year, in proportion to the number of applications filed in these States.

The second variant was supported by the French, Luxembourg and Spanish delegations. They felt that a scale of contributions calculated in this way would lead to generally more satisfactory and fairer results for the smaller States than would a scale of contributions based solely on the number of patent applications. A reallocation of contribution rates for States with more than 30,000 applications seemed advisable, as these contributions would not otherwise be sufficiently balanced.

The Working Party also discussed a proposal by the Luxembourg delegation (BR/GT IV/38/70), whereby the EEC States would re-allocate amongst themselves, in a particular proportion, the contributions payable under the first variant of the scale of contributions (see 12 above). It was suggested in this connection that a general provision should be introduced to the effect that a group of Contracting States which availed itself of the option provided in Article 8 should be able to make their contributions jointly, determining their individual contributions to this internally according to their own

BR/GT IV/41 e/70 lor/RT/fm

Page 66

11. With regard to the scale of contributions, the WorkParty could not agree on a common solution. It decided to submit to the Conference the two proposed variants of the new paragraph 3 discussed below.

12. In the first variant of paragraph 3, the scale of contributions is to be determined in accordance with the number of domestic and foreign patent applications filed in the individual Contracting States during the last year but one prior to the date of entry into force of the Convention. This provision, which was contained in the former Article 42d, paragraph 2, was redrafted in an improved form at the instigation of the United Kingdom delegation: in particular, the possibility was included of applications being made via the PCP route. In addition, the new wording of Article 4 as adopted by Working Party I at its meeting in September was taken into consideration. This Article states that the European Patent Office will be established when the Convention comes into force (see BR/48/70).

The first variant of paragraph 3 was supported by the United Kingdom, German and Norwegian delegations, principally on the grounds that the scale of contributions could be calculated easily and rationally on the other hand, the scale of contributions contained in the second variant would be too complicated and would also give unfair results when the rates of contribution of a number of small countries were compared with each other.

13. The second variant of paragraph 3 was introduced at the proposal of the French delegation, on the basis of an BR/GT IV/41 e/70 lor/RT/pmg

Page 67

The Working Party decided not to adopt the suggestion of one delegation that the Administrative Council should fix an individual minimum amount for each group of States; the Working Party felt that this would lead to the logical conclusion that the minimum amount would have to be fixed individually for each and every Contracting State and such a task would create too great difficulties for the Administrative Council.

The Working Party came to the conclusion that a uniform minimum amount for all Contracting States and groups of States would be the most expedient solution under these circumstances. It therefore decided to retain the last phrase of paragraph 3. 9. The Working Party also found it appropriate to delete the provision in paragraph 5 stating that the Administrative Council should determine the due date for payment in accordance with the liquid resources required by the European Patent Office; in its view, the Administrative Council's freedom of decision should not be limited in this respect.

Article 42c - Level of fees and payments Article 42d - Special financial contributions 10. The Working Party combined these two provisions in a single Article (now Article 42c), in order to make it clear that the expenditure of the European Patent Office should basically be covered by the fees referred to in Article 42a and by the payments referred to in Article 42b. If this should prove impossible, the European Patent Office will be able to resort to financial contributions from the Contracting States. This will be particularly relevant during the first few years of operation of the European Patent Office.

Page 68

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 27 November 1970 BR/GT IV/41/70

- Secretariat -

MINUTES of the third meeting of Working Party IV (Luxembourg, 13-15 October 1970)

1. The third meeting of Working Party IV was held in Luxembourg, from 13 to 15 October 1970, with Mr. E. ARMITAGE, Comptroller General, Patent Office, London, in the Chair.

The representatives of the International Patent Institute at The Hague and of WIPO/BIRPI took part in the meeting as observers. The representative of the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe apologised for his absence. (1) 2. The Working Party began by examining, on the basis of various working documents (BR/GT IV/31/70 and BR/GT IV/36/70 with Addendum), the financial provisions of the First Preliminary Draft Convention establishing a European System for the Grant of Patents (Articles 42-53 and Article 187). It adopted these provisions as set out in BR/56/70. (1) The list of participants is given in the Annex.

BR/GT IV/41 e/70 lor/RT/fm

Page 69

Article 42d Special financial contributions

Text drawn up by the Drafting Committee of Working Party IV

(1) If the European Patent Office is unable to balance its budget under the conditions laid down in Artiole 420 , the Contracting States shall remit to the European Patent Office special financial contributions, the amount of which shall be determined by the Administrative Council for the financial year in question. (2) These contributions shall be determined in accordance with a scale based on the number of patent applications filed in the respective Contracting States during the last year but one prior to the establishment of the European Patent Office. (3) Article 42b, paragraphs 5 and 6, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the contributions referred to in this Article.

Note to paragraph 2 This paragraph will be reconsidered at the next meeting.

Page 70

Article 42c Level of fees and payments

Text drawn up by the Drafting Committee of Working Party IV

The amounts of the fees referred to under Article 42a and of the payments referred to under Article 42b shall be fixed at such a level as to ensure that the budget of the European Patent Office is balanced.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

1. Articles 43 to 53 and 187 were approved in principle by Working Party IV at its meeting of 6 to 9 July 1970 - subject to such redrafting as might be required, especially in the light of the final version of Articles 42 to 42 g .

As regards the first-mentioned Articles, Working Party IV has not yet dealt with Article 48(3) and Article 53 d . 2. Articles 42 to 42 g have been drawn up by the drafting Committee of Working Party IV, but have not yet been re-examined by the Working Party itself.

Page 72

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 14 July 1970 BR/GT IV/31/70

- Secretariat -

PRELIMINARY DRAFT CONVENTION FOR A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Articles 42 to 42 g, 43 to 53 and 187

Texts either approved in principle by Working Party IV or drawn up by its Drafting Committee (meeting 6 to 9 July 1970) compared synoptically with the financial provisions of the Draft Convention relating to a European Patent Law as drafted by the EEC "Patents" Working Party

BR/GT IV/31 e/70 rti/PB/sw

Page 73

Article 42e 11. Article 42 e regulates the conditions under which the European Patent Office can ask for advances. Working Party IV examined the principle of the matter and agreed to continue the examination during its meeting in October.

Article 42 f

12. Still with the object of allowing the European Patent Office to meet all the situations which might arise and, more particularly, to put it in a position to deal with any unforeseeable expenditure during the running-in period, Article 42 f makes it possible to introduce an item for unforeseeable expenditure into the EPO's budget, the employment of the appropriations assigned to this item being subject to a prior decision by the Administrative Council.

Article 42 g 13. Article 42 g applies to the transitional period and provides for a recourse to special repayable contributions during the running-in period. This Article also refers to procedures for repaying these contributions. The members of Working Party IV agreed that these provisions, which are provisionally placed in an Article 42g, should appear in the transitional provisions.

The delegations agreed to study this Article in more detail during their meeting in October.

Page 74

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 4 August 1970 BR/GT IV/32/70

- Sekretariat -

MINUTES of the second meeting of Working Party IV (Luxembourg, 6 - 9 July 1970)

1. The second meeting of Working Party IV was held in Luxembourg, from 6 to 9 July 1970 with Mr. E. ARMITAGE, Comptroller General of the Patent Office, London, in the chair.

As at the first meeting, the representatives of the International Patent Institute at The Hague took part in the meeting as observers. The representatives of the Council of Europe and of WIEO/BIRIT apologised for their absence (1).

I. - ORGANISATION OF THE WORK

2. On the proposal of the Chairman, Working Party IV decided to organise its work as follows:

(1) The list of participants is annexed to this document.

BR/GT IV/32 e/70 ond/PA/bm

Article 42g

Transitional period

Text drawn up by the Drafting Committee of Working Party IV

(1) Throughout the period during which the amount of the payments made by the Contracting States in respect of renewals of European patents is insufficient to ensure a balanced budget, the European Patent Office shall have recourse to the methods of financing laid down in Article 42d. (2) The contributions thus made available by Contracting States to the European Patent Office, together with the corresponding interest, the rate of which shall be laid down in the Financial Regulations, shall be repaid to the Contracting States in as far as the revenue referred to in Article 42(s) and 42(b) is sufficient to provide the necessary budget surplus.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

1. Articles 43 to 53 and 187 were approved in principle by Working Party IV at its meeting of 6 to 9 July 1970 - subject to such redrafting as might be required, especially in the light of the final version of Articles 42 to 42 g .

As regards the first-mentioned Articles, Working Party IV has not yet dealt with Article 48(3) and Article 53d. 2. Articles 42 to 42 g have been drawn up by the drafting Committee of Working Party IV, but have not yet been re-examined by the Working Party itself.

Page 77

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 14 July 1970 BR/GT IV/31/70

- Secretariat -

PRELIMINARY DRAFT CONVENTION FOR A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Articles 42 to 42 g, 43 to 53 and 187

Texts either approved in principle by Working Party IV or drawn up by its Drafting Committee (meeting 6 to 9 July 1970) compared synoptically with the financial provisions of the Draft Convention relating to a European Patent Law as drafted by the EEC "Patents" Working Party

BR/GT IV/31 e/70 rti/PB/sw

Page 78

in respect of arrears. According to proposals by the German delegation, it was also provided, in the draft of Article 42b, that the rate of interest should be fixed at such a level that the interest covers the cost of a corresponding line of credit. While confirming their agreements on the principle of fixing a rate of interest, the delegations decided, for psychological reasons, not to refer to the rate of interest in the Articles of the Convention, but to leave the rate to be fixed in the Financial Regulations.

Article 42c

9. In Article 42c the principle will be laid down that ordinary revenue fees, and payments by the Gontracting States in respect of the renewal of European patents are to be fixed so as to balance the expenditure.

Article 42d 10. This Article regulates the call that the European Patent Office may make on special financial contributions. The second paragraph, which stipulates that the special contributions will be determined in accordance with a scale based on the number of patent applications filed in the respective Contracting States during the last year but one prior to the establishment of the European Patent Office, is subject to reservations. The reservations apply till the Spanish and Luxembourg proposals are examined during the October meeting, since these two delegations have asked for the adoption of a different scale (see points 56 and 60 below).

Page 79

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 4 August 1970 BR/GT IV/32/70

- Sekretariat -

MINUTES of the second meeting of Working Party IV (Luxembourg, 6 - 9 July 1970)

1. The second meeting of Working Party IV was held in Luxembourg, from 6 to 9 July 1970 with Mr. E. ARMITAGE, Comptroller General of the Patent Office, London, in the chair.

As at the first meeting, the representatives of the International Patent Institute at The Hague took part in the meeting as observers. The representatives of the Council of Europe and of WIEO/DIRTI apologised for their absence (1).

I. - ORGANISATION OF THE WORK

2. On the proposal of the Chairman, Working Party IV decided to organise its work as follows:

(1) The list of participants is annexed to this document.

BR/GT IV/32 e/70 ond/PA/tm

Page 80

Article 42d Special financial contributions

Text drawn up by the Drafting Committee of Working Party IV

(1) If the European Patent Office is unable to balance its budget under the conditions laid down in Artiole 420 , the Contracting States shall remit to the European Patent Office special financial contributions, the amount of which shall be determined by the Administrative Council for the financial year in question. (2) These contributions shall be determined in accordance with a scale based on the number of patent applications filed in the respective Contracting States during the last year but one prior to the establishment of the European Patent Office. (3) Article 42b, paragraphs 5 and 6, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the contributions referred to in this Article.

Note to paragraph 2 This paragraph will be reconsidered at the next meeting.

Page 81

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

1. Articles 43 to 53 and 187 were approved in principle by Working Party IV at its meeting of 6 to 9 July 1970 - subject to such redrafting as might be required, especially in the light of the final version of Articles 42 to 42g.

As regards the first-mentioned Articles, Working Party IV has not yet dealt with Article 48(3) and Article 53d.

2. Articles 42 to 42g have been drawn up by the drafting Committee of Working Party IV, but have not yet been re-examined by the Working Party itself.

Page 82

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 14 July 1970 BR/GT IV/31/70

- Secretariat -

PRELIMINARY DRAFT CONVENTION FOR A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Articles 42 to 42 g, 43 to 53 and 187

Text: either approved in principle by Working Party IV or drawn up by its Drafting Committee (meeting 6 to 9 July 1970) compared synoptically with the financial provisions of the Draft Convention relating to a European Patent Law as drafted by the EEC "Patents" Working Party

BR/GT IV/31 e/70 rti/PB/sw

Page 83

in respect of arrears. According to proposals by the German delegation, it was also provided, in the draft of Article 42b, that the rate of interest should be fixed at such a level that the interest covers the cost of a corresponding line of credit. While confirming their agreements on the principle of fixing a rate of interest, the delegations decided, for psychological reasons, not to refer to the rate of interest in the Articles of the Convention, but to leave the rate to be fixed in the Financial Regulations.

Article 42c

9. In Article 42c the principle will be laid down that ordinary revenue fees, and payments by the Gontracting States in respect of the renewal of European patents are to be fixed so as to balance the expenditure.

Article 42d

10. This Article regulates the call that the European Patent Office may make on special financial contributions. The second paragraph, which stipulates that the special contributions will be determined in accordance with a scale based on the number of patent applications filed in the respective Contracting States during the last year but one prior to the establishment of the European Patent Office, is subject to reservations. The reservations apply till the Spanish and Luxembourg proposals are examined during the October meeting, since these two delegations have asked for the adoption of a different scale (see points 56 and 60 below).

Page 84

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 4 August 1970 BR/GT IV/32/70

- Sekretariat -

M I N U T E S

of the second meeting of Working Party IV (Luxembourg, 6 - 9 July 1970)

1. The second meeting of Working Party IV was held in Luxembourg, from 6 to 9 July 1970 with Mr. E. ARMITAGE, Comptroller General of the Patent Office, London, in the chair.

As at the first meeting, the representatives of the International Patent Institute at The Hague took part in the meeting as observers. The representatives of the Council of Europe and of WIEO/BIRPI apologised for their absence (1).

I. - ORGANISATION OF THE WORK

2. On the proposal of the Chairman, Working Party IV decided to organise its work as follows: (1) The list of participants is annexed to this document.

BR/GT IV/32 e/70 ond/PA/bm

Artikel 38

Amtspflichten (1) Die Beamten und sonstigen Bediensteten des Europäischen Patentamts sind verpflichtet, auch nach Beendigung ihrer Amtstätigkeit Kenntnisse, die-ihrem Wesen nach unter das Berufsgeheimnis fallen, nicht preiszugeben. (2) Die Beamten und sonstigen Bediensteten des Europäischen Patentamts dürfen während der Dauer ihres Dienstverhältnisses weder selbst noch durch einen Mittelsmann Patentanmeldungen einreichen. (3) Der Verwaltungsrat erläßt das Statut der Beamten sowie die Beschäftigungsbedingungen für die sonstigen Bediensteten des Europäischen Patentamts.

Artikel 39

Streitsachen zwischen dem Europäischen Patentamt und seinen Bediensteten

Ein Beschwerdeausschuß, dessen Zusammensetzung und Verfahren in einem besonderen Statut geregelt werden, ist für alle Streitsachen zwischen dem Europäischen Patentamt und dessen Bediensteten innerhalb der Grenzen und nach Maßgabe der Bedingungen zuständig, die im Statut der Beamten festgelegt sind oder sich aus den Beschäftigungsbedingungen für die sonstigen Bediensteten ergeben.

Haftung

(1) Die vertragliche Haftung des Europäischen Patentamts bestimmt sich nach dem Recht, das auf den betreffenden Vertrag anzuwenden ist. (2) Im Bereich der außervertraglichen Haftung ersetzt das Europäische Patentamt den durch ihre Bediensteten in Ausübung ihrer Amtstätigkeit verursachten Schaden nach den allgemeinen Rechtsgrundsätzen, die den Rechtsordnungen der Vertragsstaaten gemeinsam sind. (3) Die persönliche Haftung der Bediensteten gegenüber dem Europäischen Patentamt bestimmt sich nach den Vorschriften ihres Statuts oder der für sie geltenden Beschäftigungsbedingungen. (4) Über Streitigkeiten über den in den Absätzen 1 und 2 vorgesehenen Schadenersatz befinden die für die Entscheidung derartiger Streitigkeiten am Ort des Sitzes des Europäischẹn Patentamts zuständigen Gerichte.

KAPITEL II

Finanzvorschriften Artikel 41 bis 52 (früher Artikel 42 bis 53)

Articlle 38

Duties of office (1) The officials and other employees of the European Patent Office shall be bound, even after the termination of their employment, not to disclose information which by its nature is a professional secret. (2) The officials or other employees of the European Patent Office may not, in the course of their employment, file applications for patents either directly or through an intermediary. (3) The Administrative Council shall adopt the service regulations for officials and the conditions of employment of other employees of the European Patent Office.

Article 39

Disputes between the European Patent Office and its staff

An Appeals Committee whose composition and procedure shall be laid down in a special statute shall be competent to adjudicate in any dispute between the European Patent Office and its employees within the limits and subject to the conditions laid down in the service regulations for officials or arising from the conditions of employment of other employees.

Article 40

Liability (1) The contractual liability of the European Patent Office shall be governed by the law applicable to the relevant contract. (2) In the matter of non-contractual liability, the European Patent Office shall be bound, in conformity with the general principles common to the laws of the Contracting States, to make good any damage caused by its employees in the performance of their duties. (3) The personal liability of its employees towards the European Patent Office shall be laid down in their service regulations or conditions of employment. (4) Disputes concerning the recovery of damages provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be decided by the courts with jurisdiction to decide such disputes in the place at which the European Patent Office is located.

CHAPTER II

Financial provisions Articles 41 to 52 (former Articles 42 to 53)

Page 86

REGIERUNGSKONFERENZ ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

CONFÉRENCE INTERGOUVERNEMENTALE POUR L'INSTITUTION D'UN SYSTĖME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS

ERSTER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

PREMIER AVANT-PROJET DE CONVENTION INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS

Page 87

Pas de remarques spéciales pour les articles 50 à 55,59 et 60 qui restent inchangés sauf que les crochets sont supprimés à l'article 53.

La séance est levée à 12.35 heures et reprise à 15 heures. Le groupe approuve d'abord le projet d'un communiqué à la presse concernant la 5 ème session.

Article 61

M. Pressonnet rappelle que la délégation française a fait des propositions qui partent d'une hypothèse différente, à savoir le dépôt national préalable.

Il n'estime pas indispensable d'examiner en détail ces propositions. Il lui paraît suffisant que, lors de la rédaction finale, on indique les modifications qui s'ensuivraient si les propositions françaises étaient adoptées.

Enfin, H. Pressonnet se demande si le paragraphe 3 ne devrait pas être rayé afin que la Convention n'admette pas expressément des actes contraires aux législations nationales.

Le Président lui fait remarquer que ce paragraphe 3 ne vise pas du tout la légitimation de tels actes. Le groupe est parti de l'idée qu'il serait très difficile pour l'Office européen de constater l'existence des dispositions nationales et d'apprécier si elles sont observées. C'est pourquoi les sanctions dovraient être prévues uniquement par les législations nationales.

De plus, l'article 61, paragraphe 2 a été inséré en tenant compte des besoins de la défense nationale. Même si la Convention prévoyait une sanction, le secret nécessité par les besoins de la défense nationale serait déjà lèvé par le fait du dépôt européen. M. Pressonnet admet que ces considérations sont pertinentes en ce qui concerne la défense nationale, mais il pense que le paragraphe 2 vise encore d'autres cas. Il serait alors difficile de prévoir des sanctions dans la législation nationale.

Le groupe décide de transmettre ce problème au Comité de rédaction qui l'examinera avant une discussion ultérieure à Munich.

Page 88

Le Président rappelle que si le brevet principal s'éteint, le brevet additionnel s'éteint aussi. Une exooption à ce principe consiste dans le cas de la nullité. En effet, en l'occurence lo brevet principal s'éteint contre le gré de son titulaire. On ajoute l'exception de la renonciation, pour éviter un procès en nullité à l'inventeur. M. van Benthem voit une objection grave contre ce système dans le fait qu'on ne prévoit pas le paiement d'annuités pour le brevet additionnel. Pour échapper au paiement des annuités dues sur tout brevet principal, la grande industrie déposera une multitude de brevets additionnels.

Le Président répond que la limitation de la vie du brevet additionnel constitue à ses yeux un frein suffisant.

De plus, il constate que quatre đélégations sont hostiles au paiement d'annuités pour un brevet additionnel.

Il aborde ensuite le problème de la conversion du brevet additionnel en brevet principal en cours de procédure jusqu'a la délivrance du brevet européen définitif. M. Roscioni désire que la question soit élargie en cas inverse.

Le Comité de rédaction rédigera une proposition sur cette question qui sera examinée lors de la session de Munich.

Article 29

La deuxième variante est supprimée.

Articles 41 à 47

Pour ces articles, le Comité de rédaction rédigera un texte sur la base des propositions françaises.

Article 49

Cet article est maintenu ainsi que les romarques. La question posée devra être tranchée par le Comité de coordination.

Deuxième Partie : COMPTES RENDUS

Avant-projet de convention relatif à un droit européen des brevets

Page 90

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 22 mai 1962. Confidentiel

Résultats de la cinquième session du groupe de travail " Brevets " qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 2 au 18 avril 1962

Couverture des dépenses

(1) Les dépenses de l'Office européen des brevets sont couvertes a) en règle générale, par les recettes de l'Office européen des brevets, notamment par les taxes prévues en vertu des dispositions de la présente Convention et de son Règlement d'exécution, et b) à titre exceptionnel, par les contributions financières des Etats contractants, dans la mesure où les recettes ne seraient pas suffisantes. (2) Les taxes visées au paragraphe précédent doivent être fixébs de telle façon que leur produit, complété par les recettes accessoires, couvre, en principe, toutes les dépenses de l'Office européen des brevets et permette la constitution et l'entretien d'un fonds de réserve, dont le plafond est déterminé par le Règlement d'exécution.

Les taxes sont fixées par le Règlement relatif au taxes pris en exécution de la présente Convention. Ce Règlement est arrêté par le [Conseil d'administration]. (3) Les contributions financières des Etats contractants prévues au paragraphe 1 du présent article sont déterminées selon la clef de répartition suivante :

Première variante :

Clef de répartition du Traité de la C. E (article 200, paragraphe 1)

Belgique	7,9
Allemagne	28
France	28
Italie	28
Luxembourg	0,2
Pays-Bas	7,9

Deuxième variante : Clef de répartition de la Convention de La Haye révisée concernant la création d'un bureau internation des brevets (article 13, paragraphe 3).

Remarques :

1. Le groupe de travail se réserve d'examiner la possibilité de recourir à une autre clef de répartition. 2. La question de l'institution d'une cotisation initiale, notamment pour les Etats adhérents, sera examiné. ultéricurement.

Page 92

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Première Partie : T E X T E S

Avant-projet de convention relatif à un droit européen des brevets

Page 93

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 1 février 1962 Confidentiel

Résultats de la quatriàne session du groupe de travail " Brevets " qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 8 au 19 janvier 1962

Page 94

et de supprimer la remarque au bas de l'article.

Article 42 (49)

Le Président indique que, sur la base de la décision prise à l'égard de l'article 208 (277), la référence à la clé de répartition du traité de la CEE ne lui semble guère possible puisque ces États tiers à la CEE peuvent adhérer à la Convention.

M. Pressonnet propose de prévoir une référence moins directe en employant une formule indiquant que la clé s'inspire de la répartition prévue ou traité de la CEE.

M. Planner fait remarquer que les travaux du groupe sont partis de l'idée que les États fondateurs de la Convention seront les six États de la CEE. Pour ce cas, la clé de répartition du traité de Rome est parfaitement appropriée.

Si ces États tiers à la CEE adhéraient à la Convention sur les brevets, la répartition des dépenses à leur égard devrait être réglée par l'accord d'adhésion pour les Six et l'État tiers. C'est pourquoi il lui semble possible de maintenir la 1e variante, telle qu'elle.

M. van Benthem se rallie à cette proposition.

M. Pressonnet fait observer que cette disposition sera certainement examinée ultérieurement par d'autres instances.

Sur la base de cette observation, le groupe décide de maintenir le texte actuel de l'article 42 mais d'ajouter aux remarques que la question de la clé de répartition à appliquer dépend de la solution acceptée pour une série d'autres articles tels que les articles 5 (6) et 208 (277).

Article 66 (61)

Le Président explique le problème posé par cet article. Selon l'opinion du groupe de travail, c'est le but

Page 95

Article 38 (48), 39 (48 b), 40 (48 + 48 a), 41 (274) Ces articles sont adoptés sans observations. A la suite d'une question de K. Dagarre, le Président précise que les crochets sont maintenus autour des mots "Conseil d'administration" pour indiquer qu'une décision doit Etre prise au sujet de ce Consail dans le cadre de la convention générale.

Article 42 (49) Ia discussion de not article est différée jusqu'à l'arrivée de N. Roscioni ot de la délégation frangaine.

Articles 43 (194), 44 (195), 45 (196), 46 (197), 47 (198), 48 (199), 49 (200), 50 (201), 51 (202), 52 (203) et 53 (204)

Ces articlese inspirés par ceux du Traité de Romo relatifs aux dispositions financières sont adoptés sans discussion.

Article 54 (52), 55 (51), et 57 (55) Ces articles sont adoptés.

Article 56 (52)

Après une interyention de M. van Benthem, au sujet du paragraphe 3 et un échange de rues sur la composition des divisions d'examen, le groupe maintiont la composition de trois membres prévue à l'avant-projet en ajoutant toutefois que la division d'examen peut faire appel à un membre juristo pour prondre des décisions où interviennent des questions de droit. En outre, il désire faire figurer sous cet article une remarque disant que le Président devrait pouvoir définir les cas dans lesquels la division devrait s'assurer lo concours d'un membre juriste. L'article est adopté avec cotte observation et transmis au Comité de rédaction.

Page 96

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 31 juillet 1962 Confidentiel

Résultats de la sixième session

du groupe de travail " Brevets " qui s'est tenue à Munich du 13 au 23 juin 1962

Chapitre II
Dispssitions financières

Article 42 (49) Couverture des depensos (1) Les depensos do l'offico ouropéon dos brevots sont couvartos : a) in règle góróralc, par los recottos do l'offico ouropéon dos brevots, notament par los taxos próvues on vertu dos dispositions do la prós onto Convention ot do son Règlomont d'cxooution; b) à titrọ oxceptionnol, par los contributions financières dos Etats oontractants, dans la mosuro où los rocottos no soraiont pas suffisantos. (2) Los taxos visóos au paragraphe prócédont doivent ôtro fixées do telle façon que lour produit, complété par les rocettes accessoires, ocuvre, on principe, toutes les dépenses de l'office européen des brevots et permette la constitution et l'entretien d'un fonds de réserve dont le plafond est déterminé par le Règlement d'exécution. Les taxos sont fixées par le Règlement relatif au taxos pris en exécution de la prósente Convention. Ce Règlement est arrôtó par le [Consoil d'administration]. (3) Les contributions financières des Etats contractants próvues au paragraphe 1 du présent article sont déterminées solon la clef do répartition suivante :

lère variante

Clef do répartition du Traité do la CEE (article 200, paragraphe 1),

Bolgiquo	7,9	Italie	28
Allemagne	28	Luxembourg	0,2
France	28	Pays-Bas	7,9

2èmo variante

Clef do répartition do la Convention de la Hayo révisée concernant la création d'un bureau international des brovots (artiole 13 paragraphe 3).

Rcrarquos :

1. Les doux variantes sont donnóos à titre indicatif. D'autres clefs do répartition pouvent ôtre envisagées. 2. La question do l'institution d'uno cotisation initiale, notamment pour les Etats aihórents, scra examiné ultériouroment.

Page 98

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL "BREVETS" COMITE DE REDACTION STRICTEMENT CONFIDENTIEL

AVANT-PROJET DE CONVENTION RELATIF A UN DROIT EUROPEEN DES BREVETS

=V E Ma 1 1962

Page 99

Les délégations allemande ot belge se rallient à la déclaration de N. van Benthem. N. De Reuse ajoute qu'on pourrait peut-être encore trouver d'autres possibilités. L'élémont décisif devrait Etre la masuré dans laquelle les différents Stats utilisent los avantages offerts par la Convention européenne.

Le Président constate que le groupe unanime exclut la deuxième variante. Quant a la troisième variante, le Président estime qu'olle n'ost acceptable que dans le cas de la"porte fermée".

Si la solution de la "porte ouvorto" prévalait, la troisième varianteaurait pour conséquence que l'Stat contractant qui produirait le plus grand nombre de demandes dovrait également couvrir les dépenses provoquées par les domandes provenant des itats tiers.

Le Président pense qu'il serait indiqué d'adopter la promière variante qui tient compte de la force économique des différents stats. Cette variante présenterait certaines difficultés lors de l'adhésion ou de l'association des Stats tiers, difficultés qui ne sont cependant pas insurmontables.

Le groupe ne pouvant pas encore se prononcer définitivement en faveur de l'une ou de l'autre solution tormine la discussion de cette question.

Le Comité de rédaction est chargé de rayer la deuxième variante. Le groupe se réserve d'étudier encore d'autres variantes possibles. La séance est levée a 18.15 heures.

Page 100

M. Pressonnet remarque que cotto question ne se poserait pas seulement pour la période d'établissement do l'Office européen. Il vise los cas d'adhésion ou d'association par les ïtats tiers.

Le Président lui demande de pouvoir reporter cotte question qui présente des difficultés considérables. La Convention européenne ne prévoira pas de clauses d'adhésion automatiques. L'adhésion ainsi que l'association d'un otat tiers seront soumises a la condition d'un accord entre lós états membres et les ùtats tiers dans lesquels il faudrait régler le sort dos droits déja conférés sur les territoires do l'Ttat tiers intérose. Dans un tel accord, on pourrait égalomont régler la question d'une taxo d'entrée. On pourrait même aller plus loin ot soumettre la possibilité d'obtenir la protection européenne pour des ressortissants des ùtats tiers a la condition que ces ïtats contribuent au financement de l'Office européen. Mais il s'agit ici d'un ensemble de. questionsqui devraient être discutées séparément. L. Pressonnet propose d'ajouter une romarque dans ce sens au bas de l'article.

En ce qui concerne la clef de répartition, H. Pressonnet se prononce en faveur de la troisième variante pour la raison que celle-ci tient compte des dépôts provenant des divers Ëtats contractants dans un délai déterminé. Cependant il admet qu'il faudrait examiner si los indications valables pour l'Institut International dos brevets peuvent être appliquées également a l'Office européen. In tout cas, il faudrait exclure la deuxième variante qui ne tient pas compte do la situation en matière de brevets. M. van Benthem tout en excluant également la deuxième variante, exprime un doute au sujet de la troisième variante qui vise à couvrir los activités de l'Institut International. Il lui parait extrêmement difficile de constater de quels pays proviendraient les demandes européennes. Cette constatation est facilement possiblo lorsqu'il s'agit de l'Institut International. C'est pourquoi la délégation néerlandaise se prononce en faveur de la première variante.

Page 101

Le groupe adopte le principe de la couverture des dépenses. Le Comité de rédaction est chargé do trouver une formulation moins oatégorique.

Au sujst du littera b) concernant l'institutiond'un fonds de réserve, le Président remarque qu'une telle solution lui parait très utile car elle permettrait de l'enrichir en période favorable et d'y avoir recours loroqus les revenus sont insuffisants pour couvrir los dépenses.

Ainsi uns modification du montant des taxes prévu par le Règloment ne s'avèrerait pas nécessaire dès que le montant des revenus change. Ce système permet une plus grande flexibilité.

Le groupe se prononce en favour de l'établissement d'un fonds de réserve et approuve en outre la proposition de li. De Reuse de prévoir un montant maximum pour ce fonds. Ce montant pourrait être fixé à un certain pourcentage des revenus annuels. Cette question peut êtra décidée ultérieurement.

Enfin, la groupe décide de rayer les parenthèses au paragraphe 2 étant donné qu'il est souhaitable de soumottre le texte de la Convention aussitôt que possible a la signature. Comme il est doutoux que les taxes puissent déja être fixées dans un proche avenir, il parait donc préférable de laisser leur fixation au soin du Conseil d'administration.

L'articlo 49 est transmis au Comité de rédaction. Celui-ci examinera dans quelle mesure il serait possible de regrouper les articles 49 et 49 a.

Discussion du principe posé par l'articlo 49 a i. de Ruyser se demande s'il ne faudrait pas prévoir que les Stats membres paient la contribution financière particulière pour la période de la constitution e 49 'entrée en fonction de l'Office européen.

Le Président pense qu'une telle disposition devrait figurer dans les dispositions finales de la Convention mais qu'elle peut être reportée a une discussion ultérioure.

Page 102

saire pour éviter le danger que les taxes ne soient trop élevées et nuisont à l'intérêt que présente le brevet européen.

Le Président estime, d'une part, que même des taxes assez élevées réclamées par l'Office européen seraient toujours moins élevées que l'ensemble des frais créés par six dépôts nationaux. D'autre part, il craint des oppositions si l'on présentait une Convention qui ne règlerait pas la question des taxes. H. van Benthem invoque de plus l'argument que la délivrance des brevets est effectuée dans l'intérêt public afin de promouvoir le développement de la technique et d'en assurer la diffusion.

Ces taxes découlant de l'intérêt public ne peuvent pas dépendre d'un paiement par les déposants. H. Pfanner de son côté pense que le principe énoncé par H. van Benthem est valable dans ce sens que les -tats sont ebligés dans l'intérêt public de prévoir la possibilité d'obtenir uns protection pour les inventions. Cet intérêt serait sauvegardé du fait de l'établissement de l'Office européen des brevets, mais il ne jous plus dès que l'Office est établi. Pour un fonctionnement normal de l'Office, il faudrait avoir recours à d'autres principes, tels que celui de la couverture des dépenses.

Le Président constate que la majorité du groupe est en faveur du principe de la couverture des dépenses. Il ajoute les remarques suivantes : d'uné part, il faut être conscient que l'Office européen nécessitera des subventions considérables pour une période assez longue; d'autre part, il ne faut pas oublier que les taxes nécessaires pour couvrir les dépenses seront d'autant moins élevées que le nombre des déposants augmentera.

On pourrait se demander si un système qui. excluerait l'accès des ressortissants des itats tiers aux titres de protection européens n'aurait pour conséquence que l'Office ne couvrirait pas ses dépenses étant donné que près de 50 . des demandes possibles émaneront des Etats tiers.

Page 103

Discussion de l'article 49 de l'avant-projet

Cet article pose le principe qui doit être respecté en'fixant les taxes de l'Office européen des brevets. Au sujet du littera a) le Président souligne que le fait do couvrir toutes les dépenses de l'Office par les taxes ne pourrait intervenir qu'après l'établissement complet de l'Office et même encore après un certain délai ultérieur jusqu'au moment où les brevets atteignent le groupe des annuités les plus élevées. N. van Benthem pense que la disposition du littera a) est trop catégorique. Jlle entraîne le risque de voir modifier assez souvent le règlement des taxes. De plus, il craint que l'on soit amené à fixer des taxes tellement élevées qu'elles seraient nuisibles à l'intérêt que présente le brevet européen.

Le Président lui répond que le principe posé sous le littera a) ne lui semble pas être tellement rigide.

Il faut tenir compte des deux points de vue. D'une part, l'Office européen ne devrait pas faire de bénéfices. D'autre part, il est impensable, que l'activité de l'Office nécessite des subventions de la part des itats contractants.

Le Président estime qu'il est suffisant de fixer le principe selon lequel les taxes doivent couvrir les dépenses de l'Office. Cinq délégations se prononcent en faveur de ce principe.

In consicérant surtout que la nécessité d'avoir recours au financement par les itats contractants pourrait créer des difficultés du côté des ministères desfinances nationaux lors de la ratification de la Convention, la délégation néerlandaise préfèrerait que les taxes soient fixées librement dans le règlement des taxes arrêté par le Conseil d'administration. Elle souscrit à la tendance de voir les dépenses de l'Office couvertes par les taxes; mais elle pense que la liby̧ité d'appréciation sét nécès-

Page 104

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Deuxième Partie : COMPTES RENDUS

Avant-projet de convention relatif à un droit européen des brevets

IV/215/62-F

Page 105

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL

" Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 1 février 1962

Confidential

Résultats de la quatriàme session du groupe de travail "Brevets" qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 8 au 19 janvier 1962

IV/215/62-F

Couverture des dépenses

1) Documents de base a) Traité de la CEE, article 200; b) Convention de La Haye révisée concernant la création d'un Bureau international des brevets, article 13; c) Convention d'union de Paris, article 13, § 8. 2) Remarques

Ad § 1 Cette disposition est inspiréo de l'article 13, § 1 de la Convention de La Haye révisée concernant la création d'un Bureau intor. national des brevets.

Ad § 2 Trois variantes sont proposées a la discussion en ce qui concerne les clefs de répartition : clef de répartition du traité de la CEE (article 200, § 1), de la Convention d'union de Paris (article13, § 8) et de la Convention de La Haye révisée concernant la création d'un Bureau international des brevets (article 13, § 8).

Taxes

1) Documents de base

Convention de La Haye relative au dépôt international de dessins et modèles industriels révisée à La Haye le 28 novembre 1960, article 19^∘. 2) Remarques

Ad § 1 : Conformément à la réglementation prévue à l'article 19, a) de la Convention de La Haye, le § 1, a) établit le principe de la couverture des dépenses, qui ne pourra naturellement être appliqué que lorsque la constitution de l'Office européen des brevots sera achovée et le nombre de brevots délivrés sera devenu normal, c'ost-à-dire environ 20 ans après l'achèvement de la constitution de l'Office européen des brevets. Jusqu'à cotte date, l'Office européen des brevets devra être financé par des contributions des Etats contractants. Celles-ci augmenteront au cours des premières années qui suivront l'ouverture de l'Office européen des brevets et diminueront ensuite progressivement. En ce qui concerne la clé de répartition des contributions financières entre les divers Etats membres, cf. article 49 a de l'avant-projet.

La constitution d'un fonds de réservo telle qu'elle est prévue à l'article 19, b) de la Convention de La Haye est placée entre crochets et proposée à la discussion.

Ad § 2. Les crochets visent à indiquer les deux solutions possibles en ce qui concerne la promulgation du règlement des taxes relatif a la présente convention : le règlement des taxes sera arrêté en même tomps que la convention elle-même, ou bien il sera arrêté ultériourement par le Conseil d'administration. Votre président donnerait la préférence à la première solution.

Page 108

Outre les articles consacrés à l'organisation de l'office européen des brevets, les membres du groupe de travail ont également reçu, en vue de la préparation de la quatrième réunion, un organigramme provisoire de l'office européen des brevets.

PREMIERE PARTIE

Le brevet européen Troisième section L'Office européen des brevets. Remarques préliminaires concernant les articles 41 à 49a.

Une partie des dispositions relatives à l'organisation de l'Office européen des brevets a déjà été arrêtée par le groupe de travail. Il s'agit des dispositions concernant l'organisation des diverses chambres de décision de l'Office européen des brevets. D'autres dispositions de cette section relatives à la division de l'administration des brevets, au registre européen des brevets et aux publications de l'Office européen des brevets ont été transmises aux membres du groupe de travail dans le document intitulé "articles divers" du 15 novembre 1961 .

Les articles 4 I à 49 a , soumis dans le présent document, contiennent des dispositions relatives à la nature juridique, au statut juridique, au siège aux langues officielles ainsi qu'aux privilèges et immunités. Ils traitent en outre de la direction de l'office, de problèmes relatifs à la non-observation des devoirs de la fonction ou à la responsabilité et de la couverture des dépenses de l'office européen des brevets ainsi que de la perception de taxes par cet office.

Plusieurs dispositions mentionnent le Conseil d'Administration comme organe chargé d'exercer un contrôle sur l'Office européen des brevets et auquel il sera accordé certains pouvoirs lui permettant d'arrêter des règlements. Le terme "Conseil d'administration" est placé entre crochets dans le projet pour indiquer que l'avant-projet ne doit nullement préjuger l'étude ultérieure de la question de savoir à quel organe ces prérogatives seront accordées dans le cadre de la convention relative au droit européen des brevets.

Page 110

Kurt Haertel.

Remarques

concernant le pramier avant-projet de convention relatif à un droit européen des brevets

   -1-1-

Articles 4 I à 60

[Articles 4 I à 49 a ]

Page 111

3ème variante Clef de répartition de la convention de La Haye révisée concernant la création d'un bureau international des brevets (article 13, § 3).

Couverture des dépenses

(1) Les dépenses do l'Office européen des brevets sont couvertes a) par los recettes de l'Office européen des brevets, notamment par les taxes a verser en vertu du règlement des taxes annexé a la présente convention, et b) par les contributions financières des Etats contractants, dans la mesure où les recettes de l'Office européen des brevets ne sont pas suffisantes. (2) Les contributions financières des Etats contractants sont déterminées solon la clef de répartition suivante : lèro variante Clef de répartition du traité de la CES (article 200, § 1) Belgique 7,9 Allemagne 28 France 28 Italie 28 Luxembourg 0,2 Pays-Bas 7,9 2ème variante Clef de répartition de la Convention d'Union do Paris (article 13, § 8) Belgique 15 unités Allemagne 25 unités France 25 unités Italie 25 unités Luxembourg 3 unités Pays-Bas 10 unités

Page 113

Article 49

Taxes

(1) Les taxes de l'Office européen des brevets doivent être fixés de telle façon a) que leur produit couvre toutes les dépenses de l'Office européen des brevets, et b) qu'elles permettent l'entretien d'un fonds de réserve?. (2) Les taxes sont fixées dans le règlement des taxes annexé à la présente convention qui est arrêté par le conseil d'administration?.

Page 114

IV/8926/61-F Orig. : D

Kurt Haertel Bonn, le 8 décembre 1961 CONFIDENTIEL

Premicr projet de convention relative a un droit européen dos brevets

Articlos 41 à 60 [Articles 41 à 49 a]

Page 115

Keine besonderen Bemerkungen zu den Artikeln 50 - 55, 59, 60, die unverändert übernommen werden. Lediglich die Klammern in Art. 53 werden gestrichen.

Unterbrechung der Sitzung: 12.35 Uhr; Wiederaufnahme: 15 Uhr.

Die Arbeitsgruppe genehmigt zunächst eine Mitteilung an die Presse über die 5. Sitzung.

Artikel 61

Herr Fressonnet weist darauf hin, daß die französische Delegation Vorschläge gemacht habe, die von einem anderen Ausgangspunkt ausgingen, nämlich von der nationalen Voranmeldung.

Er halte es nicht unbedingt für erforderlich, in eine Detailprufung dieser Vorschläge einzusteigen. Es genüge, wenn in der endgültigen Fassung auf die Änderungen hingewiesen würde, die erfolgen müßten, wenn die französischer Vorschläge angenommen würden.

Schließlich sei eine Streichung des Absatzes 3 zu erwägen, damit das Abkommen nicht ausdrücklich Handlungen zulasse, die zu den nationalen Gesetzen in Widerspruch stünden.

Der Vorsitzende erklärt, 'Abs. 3 mache keineswegs solche Handlungen rechtmäßig. Die Arbeitsgruppe sei davon ausgegangen, daß es für das Europäische Patentamt sehr schwer sei, festzustellen, ob nationale Gesetzesbestimmungen bestehen, und ob sie beachtet worden seien. Deshalb könnten sich die rechtlichen Folgen eines Verstoßes nur nach den nationalen Gesetzen richten.

Man habe sich für Art. 61 Abs. 2 entschieden, um den Erfordernissen der Landesverteidigung gerecht zu werden. Auch wenn das Abkommen eine Sanktion vorsehe, sei die durch die Erfordernisse der Landesverteidigung notwendige Geheimhaltung schon durch die Anmeldung des europäischen Patents nicht mehr gewahrt.

Herr Fressonnet meint, diese Erwägungen seien zutreffend, soweit sie die Landesverteidigung beträfen. Absatz 2 betreffe aber nach seiner Ansicht noch einen anderen Fall. Daher sei es schwierig, Sanktionen nach der nationalen Gesetzgebung vorzusehen.

Page 116

Der Vorsitzende weist darauf hin, daß das Zusatzpatent mit dem Hauptpatent erlösche. Eine Ausnahme bestehe nur bei der Nichtigkeit. In diesem Fall erlösche das Hauptpatent gegen den Willen seines Inhabers. Dazu komme die Ausnahme des Verzichts, um dem Erfinder ein Nichtigkeitsverfahren zu ersparen.

Herr van Benthem meint, da für das Zusatzpatent keine Jahresgebühren bezahlt werden müßten, liege darin ein schwerer Verstoß gegen dieses System. Die Großindustrie werde eine Unzahl von Zusatzpatenten anmelden, um die Zahlung der Jahresgebühren für jedes Hauptpatent zu sparen.

Der Vorsitzende erwidert, in seinen Augen sei die Begrenzung der Lebensdauer des Zusatzpatents ein ausreichendes Hindernis.

Außerdem hätten sich 4 Delegationen gegen die Zahlung von Jahresgebühren für das Zusatzpatent ausgesprochen.

Der Vorsitzende kommt sodann auf das Problcm der Umwandlung des Zusatzpatents in ein Hauptpatent im Laufe des Verfahrens bis zur Erteilung des endgultigen europäischen Patents.

Herr Roscioni meint, das Problem solle auf den umgekehrten Fall erweitert werden.

Der Redaktionsausschuß wird beauftragt, hierzu einen Vorschlag ausuerbeiten, der in der Münchener Sitzung erörtert werden soll.

Artikel 29 Die 2. Alternative wird gestrichen.

Artikel 41 bis 47 Der Redaktionsausschuß wird beauftragt, hierzu einen dem französischen Vorschlag entsprechenden Text auszuarbeiten.

Artikel 49 Der Artikel und die Anmerkungen werden beibehalten. Der Koordinationsausschuß soll das hier aufgeworfene Problem behandeln.

Page 117

ARBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Zweiter Teil : SITZUNGSBERICHTE

Arbeitsentwurf eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Page 118

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Brüssel, den 22. Mai 1962 VERTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der fünften Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 2. bis 18. April 1962 in Brüssel

3076/IV/62-D Orig.: F

Page 119

Brüssel, den 18. Januar 1962

Artikol 49 Deckung der Ausgaben (1) Dio Ausgaben des iuropäischen Patentamts worden godeckt : a) grundsätzlich durch die Einnahmen des Europäischon Patentamts, insbesondere durch die nach den Vorschriften dioses Abkommens und dor Ausführungsordnung zu diosom Abkommen zu ontrichtenden Gobühren, und b) ausnahmsweise durch Beiträge dor Vertragsstaaten, soweit die Einnahmen nicht ausreichen.* (2) Dio im vorhergehenden Absatz vorgesehenen Gebühren sind so festzusetzen, dass ihr Iirtrag mit seiner Ergänzung durch die zusätzlichen Einnahmen grundsätzlich alle Ausgaben des Europäischen Patentamts dockt und dass sie dio Einrichtung und Aufrochterhaltung eines Reservefonds ormöglichen, dessen Höchstbotrag durch die Ausführungsordnung bestimmt wird.

Dio Gebühren werden durch die Gobühronordnung zu diesem Abkommen festgosetzt. Diese Gebührenordnung orlässt der [Verwaltungsrat]. (3) Die in Absatz 1 dieses Artikols vorgesehonen Beiträge der Vertragsstaaten werden nach folgondom Aufbringungsschlüssel bestimmt :

1. Alternativo :

Aufbringungsschlüssel des SWG-Vortrages (Artikol 200 Abs. 1) Belgion 7,9 Deutschland 28 Frankroich 28 Italion 28 Luxemburg 0,2 Niodorlando 7,9 2. Alternative :

Aufbringungsschlüssel des revidierten Haager Abkommens über die Errichtung oinos Internationalen Patentbüros (Artikol 13 Abs. 3).

Bemerkungen :

1. Die Arboitsgruppe bohält sich vor, die Möglichkeit zu prüfen, auf einen anderen Aufbringungsschlüssel zurückzugreifen. 2. Die Frage dor Winführung oines Anfangsboitragsjbánobesondaro für die beitrotenden Staaten, wird später geprüft werden.

Page 120

ARBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Erster Teil : T E X T E N T W U R F E

Arbeitsentwurf eines Abkommons über ein curopäisches Patentrecht

Page 121

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Brüssel, den 1. Februar 1962 VERTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der vierten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 8. bis 19. Januar 1962 in Drüssel

Page 122

Die Gruppe beschliesst, die bisherige Fassung beizubehalten und die Bemerkung am Ende des Artikels zu streichen.

Artikel 42 (49) Der Vorsitzende erklärt, dass es ihm wegen des inzwischen zu Artikel 208 (277) gefassten Beschlusses nicht möglich scheine, hier den Aufbringungsschlüssel des EWG-Vertrages zu verwenden, da diesem Abkommen jetzt auch dritte Staaten ausserhalb der EWG beitreten können.

Herr Fressonnet schlägt eine weniger direkte Bezugnahme in der Form vor, dass der Schlüssel in Anlehnung an den im EWG-Vertrag enthaltenen Aufbringungsschlüssel bestimmt werden soll.

Hierzu bemerkt Herr Pfanner, die Gruppe sei bei ihrer Arbeit von dem Gedanken ausgegangen, dass Gründerstaaten des Abkommens die sechs EWG-Staaten seien und für diesen Fall sei der Aufbringungsschlüssel des Rom-Vertrages durchaus zweckmässig.

Sollten jedoch dritte nicht der EWG angehördende Staaten dem Patentabkommen beitreten, so müsse die Verteilung der sie betreffenden Ausgaben in der Beitrittsvereinbarung zwischen den Sechs und dem dritten Staat geregelt werden. Daher glaube er, dass man die erste Fassung in ihrer jetzigen Form beibehalten könne.

Herr van Benthem schloss sich diesem Vorschlag an. Herr Fressonnet wies darauf hin, dass diese Bestimmung zweifellos anschliessend noch von anderen Instanzen geprüft würde.

Die Gruppe beschloss daraufhin, den gegenwärtigen Text von Artikel 42 beizubehalten, jedoch zusätzlich eine weitere Bemerkung hinzuzufügen, welche darauf hinweist, dass die Frage, welcher Aufbringungsschlüssel gelten soll, davon abhängt, welche Lösung bei einer Reihe von anderen Artikeln wie Artikel 5 (6) und 208 (277) angenommen wird.

Artikel 66 (61) Der Vorsitzende erläutert das Problem, das sich bei diesem Artikel ergibt. Nach Ansicht der Arbeitsgruppe soll diese Bestimmung einem Vertrags-

Page 123

Artikel 38 (48), 39 (48 b), 40 (48 + 48 a), 41 (274) Diese Artikel wurden ohne anderungsvorschläge angenommen. Eine Frage des Herrn Degavre beantwortete der Vorsitzende dahingehend, daß die eckigen Klammern für den Ausdruck "Verwaltungsrat" beibehalten werden sollen, um darauf hinzuweisen, daß im Rahmen des allgemeinen Abkommens noch eine Entscheidung über diesen Rat getroffen werden müsse.

Artikel 42 (49) Die Besprechung dieses Artikels wird bis zur Ankunft des Herrn Roscioni sowie der französischen Delegation vertagt.

Artikel 43 (194), 44 (195), 45 (196), 46 (197), 47 (198), 48 (199), 49 (200), 50 (201), 51 (202), 52 (203) und 53 (204)

Diese mit den Artikeln des Rom-Vertrages zusammenhängenden Artikel über die Finanzvorschriften wurden ohne Diskussion angenommen.

Artikel 54 (50), 55 (51), und 57 (55) Diese Artikel wurden gleichfalls angenommen. Artikel 56 (52) Nach einer Zwischenfrage von Herrn van Benthem wegen Absatz 3 und einem Gedankenaustausch über die Zusammensetzung der Prüfungsabteilungen behielt die Gruppe die im Vorentwurf vorgesehene Zusammensetzung aus drei Prüfern bei, fügte jedoch hinzu, daß die Prüfungsabteilung bei Entscheidungen über Rechtsfragen um einen rechtskundigen Prüfer erweitert werden könne. Ferner beabsichtigt die Gruppe, diesem Artikel eine Bemerkung anzufügen, wonach der Vorsitzende die Fälle bestimmen soll, in denen die Prüfungsabteilung ein rechtskundiges Mitglied hinzuziehen müsse. Der Artikel wurde mit dieser Bemerkung angenommen und dem Redaktionsausschuß überwiesen.

Page 124

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Brüssel, den 31. Juli 1962 Vertraulich

Ergebnisse der sechsten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 13. bis 23. Juni 1962 in Munchen

2. Fassung:

Aufbringungsschlüssel des revidierten Haager Abkommens über die Errichtung eines Internationalen Patentbüros (Artikel 13 Abs. 3).

Bemerkungen:

1. Beide Fassungen sind nur beispielsweise. aufgeführt. Es sind auch andere Aufbringungsschlüssel denkbar. 2. Die Frage der Einführung eines Anfangsbeitrags, insbesondere für die beitretenden Staaten, wird später geprüft werden.

Kapitel II

Finanzvorschriften Artikel 42 (49)

Deckung der Ausgaben (1) Die Ausgaben des Europäischen Patentamts werden gedeckt: a) grundsätzlich durch die Einnahmen des Europäischen Patentamts, insbesondere durch die nach den Vorschriften dieses Abkommens und der Ausführungsordnung zu diesem Abkommen zu entrichtenden Gebühren; b) ausnahmsweise durch Beiträge der Vertragsstaaten, soweit die Einnahmen nicht ausreichen. (2) Die im vorhergehenden Absatz vorgesehenen Gebühren sind so festzusetzen, daß ihr Ertrag mit seiner Ergänzung durch die zusätzlichen Einnahmen grundsätzlich alle Ausgaben des Europäischen Patentamts deckt und die Einrichtung und Aufrechterhaltung eines Reservefonds ermöglicht, dessen Höchstbetrag durch die Ausführungsordnung bestimmt wird. Die Gebühren werden durch die Gebührenordnung zu diesem Abkommen festgesetzt. Diese Gebührenordnung erläßt der [Verwaltungsrat]. (3) Die in Absatz 1 dieses Artikels vorgesehenen Beiträge der Vertragsstaaten werden nach folgendem Aufbringungsschlüssel bestimmt:

1. Fassung:

Aufbringungsschlüssel des EWG-Verirags (Artikel 200 Abs. 1) Belgien 7,9 Deutschland 28 Frankreich 28 Italien 28 Luxemburg 0,2 Niederlande 7,9

Page 127

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" Brüssel, den 26. Mai 1962 Redaktionsausschuss

STRENG VERTRAULICH

Vor e h t w u f f eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Page 128

Die deutsche und die belgische Delegation schliessen sich Herrn van Benthem an.

Herr De Reuse fügt hinzu, man könne vielleicht noch weitere Möglichkeiten finden. Entscheidend müsse der Gesichtspunkt sein, in welchem Umfang die einzelnen Staaten die durch das europäische Abkommen gebotenen Vorteile in Anspruch nehmen.

Der Präsident stellt fest, dass die Gruppe die zweite Alternative einstimmig ablehnt. Die dritte Alternative hält der Präsident nur für den Fall der "geschlossenen Tür" für annehmbar.

Bei einer Bevorzugung der Lösung der "offenen Tür" werde die dritte Lösung dazu führen, dass der Vertragsstaat mit der grössten Zahl von Anmeldungen auch die durch die Anmeldungen aus den Drittstaaten verursachten Ausgaben decken müsse.

Der Präsident hält es für angebracht, die erste Alternative anzunehmen, da sie die Wirtschaftskraft der einzelnen Staaten berücksichtige. Diese Alternative werde zwar im Falle eines Beitritts oder einer Assoziierung von Drittstaaten bestimmte Schwierigkeiten hervorrufen, die jedoch beseitigt werden könnten.

Da sich die Gruppe noch nicht endgültig für die eine oder andere Lösung entscheiden kann, beendet sie die Erörterung dieser Frage.

Der Redaktionsausschuss wird beauftragt, die zweite Alternative zu streichen.

Die Gruppe behält sich vor, die Möglichkeit weiterer Alternativen zu untersuchen.

Die Sitzung wird um 18.15 Uhr geschlossen.

Page 129

Herr Fressonnet erklärt, diese Frage sei nicht nur für die Aufbauzeit des Europäischen Patentamtes von Bedeutung. Er denkt an die Fälle des Beitritts oder der Assoziierung von Drittstaaten.

Der Präsident bittet ihn, diese Frage zurückzustellen, da sie erhebliche Schwierigkeiten bereite. Das europäische Abkommen sehe keine Klauseln über einen automatischen Beitritt vor. Der Beitritt sowie die Assoziierung eines Drittstaates setzten ein Abkommen zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten und den Drittstaaten voraus, in welchem das Schicksal der für das Hoheitsgebiet des betreffenden Drittstaates bereits gewährten Rechte geregelt werden müsse. In einem solchen Abkommen könne man ebenfalls die Frage einer Aufnahmegebühr klären. Man könne sogar noch weiter gehen und die Gewährung des europäischen Schutzes für Angehörige von Drittstaaten davon abhängig machen, dass diese Staaten sich an der Finanzierung des Europäischen Patentamtes beteiligten. Hierbei handele es sich jedoch um einen Fragenkomplex, der gesondert erörtert werden müsse.

Herr Fressonnet macht den Vorschlag, zu diesem Artikel eine entsprechende Fussnote aufzunehmen.

Hinsichtlich des Aufbringungsschlüssels befürwortet Herr Fressonnet die dritte Alternative, weil sie die aus den einzelnen Vertragsstaaten innerhalb einer bestimmten Frist eingereichten Anmeldungen berücksichtige. Er räumt jedoch ein, dass geprüft werden müsse, ob die für das Internationale Patentinstitut gültigen Merkmale auch für das Europäische Patentamt herangezogen werden könnten. Auf jeden Fall müsse die zweite Alternative ausgeschlossen werden, da sie die für die Patente massgeblichen Verhältnisse unberücksichtigt lasse.

Herr van Benthem, der ebenfalls die zweite Alternative ablehnt, meldet Zweifel hinsichtlich der dritten Alternative zur Finanzierung der Tätigkeiten des Internationalen Patentinstituts an. Er hält es für äusserst schwierig festzustellen, aus welchen Ländern die europäischen Patentanmeldungen stammen. Diese Feststellung sei beim Internationalen Patentinstitut ohne Schwierigkeiten möglich. Die niederländische Delegation befürwortet daher die erste Alternative.

Page 130

Die Gruppe nimmt den Grundsatz der Kostendeckung an. Der Redaktionsausschuss wird beauftragt, eine elastischere Formulierung zu treffen.

Zu Buchstabe b) über die Einrichtung eines Reservefonds bemerkt der Präsident, dass er eine solche Lösung für sehr vorteilhaft halte, da sie in günstigen Zeiten eine auffüllung des Fonds gestatte, auf den zurückgegriffen werden könne, wenn die Einnahmen zur Deckung der Ausgaben nicht ausreichten.

Eine Änderung der durch die Gebührenordnung vorgesehenen Gebührensätze sei darum bei Schwankungen der Einnahmen nicht erforderlich. Dieses System gestatte eine grössere Anpassungsfähigkeit.

Die Gruppe befürwortet die Einrichtung eines Reservefonds und billigt ausserdem den Vorschlag von Herrn De Reuse, für diesen Fonds einen Höchstbetrag vorzusehen. Diesem Betrag könne ein bestimmter Hundertsatz der jährlichen Einnahmen zugrunde gelegt werden. Diese Frage kann später entschieden werden.

Da das Abkommen möglichst bald zur Unterzeichnung vorgelegt werden soll, beschliesst die Gruppe, die Klammern in Absatz 2 wegfallen zu lassen. Angesichts der Zweifel, ob die Gebühren bereits in naher Zukunft festgelegt werden können, ist es zweckmässiger, die Festlegung dem Verwaltungsrat zu überlassen.

Artikel 49 wird an den Redaktionsausschuss überwiesen. Dieser soll prüfen, inwieweit die Artikel 49 und 49 a) zusammengefasst werden können.

Erörterung des in Artikel 49 a) aufgestellten Grundsatzes

Herr de Muyser stellt die Frage, ob man nicht vorsehen müsse, dass die Mitgliedstaaten für die Aufbauzeit und den Beginn der Tätigkeit des Europäischen Patentamtes besondere finanzielle Beiträge zahlen.

Der Präsident ist der Ansicht, eine solche Bestimmung müsse in den Schlussbestimmungen des Abkommens stehen, könne aber für eine spätere Erörterung zurückgestellt werden.

Page 131

hoch sind und dem Interesse am europäischen Patent schaden: Der Präsident ist einerseits der Ansicht, dass selbst recht hohe Gebühren des Europäischen Patentamtes immer noch unter den gesamten Kosten für sechs nationale Anmeldungen liegen würden. Andererseits befürchtet er Einwendungen, wenn man ein Abkommen ohne Regelung der Gebührenfrage vorlegen würde.

Herr van Benthem macht ausserdem geltend, dass die Erteilung der Patente im öffentlichen Interesse erfolge, um die Entwicklung der Technik zu fördern und ihre Verbreitung zu gewährleisten.

Diese sich aus dem öffentlichen Interesse ergebenden Gebühren dürften nicht von einer Zahlung der Anmelder abhängig sein.

Herr Pfanner lässt das Argument von Herrn van Benthem insoweit gelten, als die Staaten im öffentlichen Interesse verpflichtet sind, die Möglichkeit zur Erlangung eines Schutzes für die Erfindungen vorzusehen. Dieses Interesse sei durch die Errichtung des Europäischen Patentamtes gewahrt, werde jedoch gegenstandslos, sobald das Patentamt errichtet worden sei. Für das normale Funktionieren des Patentamtes müssten andere Grundsätze herangezogen werden, wie zum Beispiel das Kostendeckungsprinzip.

Der Präsident stellt fest, dass die Mehrheit der Gruppe den Grundsatz der Kostendeckung befürwortet. Hierzu bemerkt er noch folgendes: -Iinerseits müsse man sich darüber klar sein, dass das Europäische Patentamt für recht lange Zeit erhebliche Subventionen benötige; andererseits dürfe man nicht vergessen, dass die für die Deckung der Ausgaben notwendigen Gebühren um so geringer seien, als die Zahl der Anmeldungen steige.

Man könne sich fragen, ob der Ausschluss von Angehörigen der dritten Staaten vom europäischen Rechtsschutz nicht dazu führe, dass das Patentamt seine Ausgaben nicht decken könne, weil nahezu 50 v.H. der möglichen Anmeldungen aus den Drittstaaten kommen würden.

Erörterungen zu Artikel 49 des Vorentwurfs

Dieser Artikel stellt den Grundsatz für die Festlegung der Gebühren des Europäischen Patentamtes auf. Zu Buchstabe a) weist der Präsident darauf hin, dass eine Deckung aller Ausgaben des Patentamtes durch die Gebühren erst nach der vollständigen Errichtung des Patentamtes und sogar erst noch etwas später in Betracht kommen könne, nämlich erst dann, wenn die Patente die Gruppe der höchsten Jahresgebühren erreichten.

Herr van Benthem hält die Regelung unter Buchstabe a) für zu wenig elastisch. Sie könne zu einer häufigen Änderung der Gebührenordnung führen. Ausserdem sei zu befürchten, dass derart hohe Gebühren festgesetzt werden müssten, dass sie dem Interesse am europäischen Patent schadeten.

Der Präsident antwortet ihm, dass ihm der unter Buchstabe a) aufgestellte Grundsatz nicht derart starr erscheine.

Man müsse zwei Gesichtspunkte berücksichtigen. Einerseits dürfe das Europäische Patentamt keine Gewinne erzielen. Andererseits sei es undenkbar, dass die Tätigkeit des Patentamtes Subventionen der Vertragsstaaten erforderlich mache.

Der Präsident hält es für ausreichend, den Grundsatz festzulegen, dass die Gebühren die Ausgaben des Patentamtes decken müssen. Fünf Delegationen befürworten diesen Grundsatz.

Insbesondere mit Rücksicht darauf, dass eine Heranziehung der Vertragsstaaten zur Finanzierung dazu führen könnte, dass die nationalen Finanzministerien bei der Ratifizierung des Abkommens Schwierigkeiten machen, würde die niederländische Delegation einer Lösung den Vorzug geben, wonach die Gebühren in der vom Verwaltungsrat erlassenen Gebührenordnung nach freiem Ermessen festgesetzt werden. Sie unterstützt die Tendenz, dass die Ausgaben des Patentamtes durch die Gebühren gedeckt werden, hält aber ein freies Ermessen für erforderlich, um, zu vermeiden, dass die Gebühren zu

Zweiter Teil : SITZUNGSBERICHTE

Arbeitsentwurf eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Page 134

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Brüssel, den 1. Februar 1962 VERTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der vierten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 8. bis 19. Januar 1962 in Brüssel

Zu Artikel 49a

Deckung der Ausgaben

1. Materialien: a) EWG-Vertrag, Art. 200 ; b) revidiertes Haager Abkommen über die Errichtung eines internationalen Patentbüros, Art.13; c) Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft, Art.13, Abs.8. 2. Bemerkungen:

Zu Abs.1: Diese Bestimmung lehnt sich an Art.13, Abs. 1 des revidierten Haager Abkommens über die Errichtung eines internationalen Patentbüros an. Zu Abs. 2: In drei Alternativen werden die Aufbringungsschlüssel des EWG-Vertrags ( $ 200 Abs.1), der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft (Art. 13 Abs.8) und des revidierten Haager Abkommens über die Errichtung eines internationalen Patentbüros (Art. 13 Abs.8) zur Diskussion gestellt.

Zu Artikel 49

Gebühren

1. Materialien:

Haager Abkommen über die internationale Hinterlegung gewerblicher Muster und Modelle in der Haager Fassung vom 28. November 1960, Art. 19.

2. Bemerkungen:

Zu Abs.1: Entsprechend der Regelung in Art.19, Buchst.a) des Haager Abkommens wurde in Abs.1, Buchst.a) das Kostendeckungsprinzip festgelegt, das naturgemäß erst nach völligem Aufbau des Europäischen Patentamts und nach Vorhandensein eines normalen Bestandes an erteilten Patenten angewendet werden kann, d.h. etwa 20 Jahre nach dem völligen Aufbau des Europäischen Patentamts. Bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt wird das Europäische Patentamt durch Zuschüsse der Vertragsstaaten finanziert werden müssen. Diese Zuschüsse werden in den ersten Jahreñ nach der Eröffnung des Europäischen Patentamts wachsen, um sich dann allmählich wieder zu verringern. liegen des Schlüssels, nach dem die Zuschüsse für die einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten zu berechnen sind, vgl. Art. 49 a des Arbeitsentwurfs.

In Klammern wird entsprechend Art.19, Buchst.b) des Haager Abkommens die Bildung eines Reservefonds zur Diskussion gestellt.

Zu Abs. 2: Durch die Klammer sollen die beiden Möglichkeiten für den Erlaß der Gebührenordnung zu diesem Abkommen angedeutet werden: Entweder wird die Gebührenordnung gleichzeitig mit dem Abkommen selbst festgelegt oder sie wird später vom Verwaltungsrat erlassen. Ihr Vorsitzender würde der ersten Möglichkeit den Vorzug geben.

Page 137

keiner Weise präjudiziert werden soll.

Neben den Artikeln, die sich mit der Organisation des Europäischen Patentamts beschäftigen, ist den Mitgliedern der Arbeitsgruppe zur Vorbereitung der nächsten Sitzung auch ein vorläufiges Organisationsschema für das Europäische Patentamt zugegangen.

Page 138

Erster Teil

Das europäische Patent 3. Abschnitt

Das Europäische Patentamt V o r b e m e r k u n g zu Artikel 41 bis 49 a

Ein Teil der Vorschriften über die Organisation des Europäischen Patentamts ist von der Arbeitsgruppe bereits verabschiedet worden. Es handelt sich um die Vorschriften, die sich mit der Organisation der verschiedenen Spruchkammern des Europäischen Patentamts befassen. Weitere Vorschriften dieses Abschnitts über die Patentverwaltungsabteilung, das Europäische Patentregister und die Veröffentlichungen des Europäischen Patentamts sind den Mitgliedern der Arbeitsgruppe mit dem Dokument "Verschiedene Artikel" vom 15. November 1961 zugegangen.

Die mit dem vorliegenden Dokument vorgelegten Artikel 41 bis 49 a enthalten Bestimmungen über Rechtsnatur, Rechtsstellung, Sitz, Amtssprachen sowie Vorrechte und Befreiungen. Sie behandeln ferner die Leitung des Amts, Fragen der Amtspflichtverletzung oder Haftung und die Deckung der Ausgaben des Europäischen Patentamts sowie die Erhebung von Gebühren durch dieses Amt.

In mehreren Bestimmungen ist als Organ, das die Aufsicht über das Europäische Patentamt führen und eine gewisse Verordnungsgewalt eingeräumt erhalten soll, der Verwaltungsrat genannt. Das Wort "Verwaltungsrat" erscheint im Entwurf in Klammern, um anzudeuten, daß der späteren Prüfung der Frage, welchem Organ im Rahmen des Abkommens über das europäische Patentrecht entsprechende Befugnisse eingeräumt werden sollen, durch den irbeitsentwurf in

VERTRAULICH!

B e m e r k u n g e n
zu dem ersten Arbeitsentwurf
eines Abkommens
über ein europäisches Patentrecht
Artikel 41 bis 60
Artikel 41 bis 49a

Page 140

3. Alternative

Aufbringungsschlüssel des revidierten Haager Abkommens über die Errichtung eines Internationalen Patentbüros (Artikel 13 Abs. 3)

Artikel 49 a

Deckung der Ausgaben (1) Die Ausgaben des Europäischen Patentamts werden gedeckt a) durch die Einnahmen des Europäischen Patentamts, insbesondere durch die nach der Gebührenordnung zu diesem Abkommen zu entrichtenden Gebühren, und b) durch Beiträge der Vertragsstaaten, soweit die Einnahmen des Europäischen Patentamts nicht ausreichen. (2) Die Beiträge der Vertragsstaaten werden nach folgendem aufbringungsschlüssel bestimmt:

1. Alternative

Aufbringungsschlüssel des EWG-Vertrags (Artike1 200 Abs.1) Belgien 7,9 Deutschland 28 Frankreich 28 Italien 28 Luxemburg 0,2 Niederlande 7,9 2. Alternative

Aufbringungsschlüssel der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft (Artikel 13 Abs. 8)

Belgien 15 Einheiten Deutschland 25 Einheiten Frankreich 25 Einheiten Italien 25 Einheiten Luxemburg 3 Einheiten Niederlande 10 Einheiten

Page 142

(1) Die Gebühren des Europäischen Patentamts sind so festzusetzen, a) daß ihr Ertrag alle Ausgaben des Europäischen Patentamts deckt, L^und b) daß sie die Aufrechterhaltung eines Reservefonds ermöglichen. 7 (2) Die Gebühren werden durch die Gebührenordnung zu diesem Abkcmen festgesetzt L; die der Verwaltungsrat erläßt. 7

VERTRAULICH!

Erster Arbeitsentwurf
eines Abkommens
über ein europäisches Patentrecht
Artikel 41 bis 60
[Artikel 41 bis 49 a]

Page 144

Art. 40 MPO -2-

Entwurf, der dem nebenstehenden Dokument zugrunde liegt	Art. Nr. im Entwurf/ Dokument	Dokument, in dem der Art. behandelt wird	Fundstelle im Dokument
E 1972	38	M/PR/III	S. 169-171
"	38	M/PR/III	S. 173, Nr. 101-106, Nr. 113-122
"	38	M/PR/G	S. 241-195

Page 145

Annex III

on the results of Main Committee III's proceedings

1. The terms of reference of Main Committee III, chaired by Mr. Armitage, Comptroller-General of the United Kingdom Patents Office, covered all the financial provisions contained in the Draft Convention submitted to the Munich Diplomatic Conference, i.e. 20 Articles, together with the Draft Recommendation on the Status and Remuneration of members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal and of the Boards of Appeal appointed during a transitional period.

The importance of these Articles as regards the operation of the European Patents Organisation cannot fail to be apparent. In the other hand it is not so easy to acquire a full awareness of the extent and complexity of the preparatory work which they have necessitated. It has been necessary to ascertain that the proposed financial arrangements would be workable in a satisfactory manner and, for this purpose, to ascertain the long-term budget prospects. This concern led to a consideration, on the expenditure side, of staffing requirements and staff remuneration, supplies of material and equipment, reimbursement of sums paid in by the Contracting States during the initial years; and on the revenue side, the fees charged directly by the European Patents Office during the procedure of granting patents and sums paid in by Contracting States, either definitively in the case of the levy on the national fees for maintaining in force European patents granted in these States, or in the form of loans in the case of what are termed "special" contributions. It was inevitable of course that during the first ten years the latter contributions are likely to be the rule rather than the exception, to enable the European system for the grant of patents to get under way. However, the preparatory work to which it seemed useful to refer in this report has shown that it was probable, if not possible, that by the end of its tenth year, the European Patent Office would be in a position to balance its budget with its own resources - a factor which forms the underlying principle of the financial arrangements submitted to the Munich Diplomatic Conference for approval.

2. A number of proposals were submitted by national delegations for amendments to 7 of the 20 Articles of the Draft Convention which cover the financial provisions. Following the discussions of Main Committee III, 9 Articles were slightly amended; there were no really substantial amendments.

3. Among the Articles to which attention should be drawn there is, first and foremost, Article 38 concerning special financial contributions from the Contracting States. Paragraph 3 of this Article lays down the financial contributions from the States on the basis of the number of patent applications filed in the last year but one prior to that of entry into force of the Convention, calculated as follows: one half in proportion to the number of patent applications filed in the Contracting State concerned; and the other half in proportion to the second highest number of patent applications filed in the other Contracting States by natural or legal persons in that State.

The first number measures the volume of patent-grant activity by the national industrial property service of each Contracting State; this activity, which is the source of expenditure at the national level, should be reduced in proportion to the success of the European system. The second number reflects the work load which will be imposed directly upon the European Patent Office by the national offices of each Contracting State.

A proposal was made to amend the percentages as formulated above, by reducing the first percentage from 50 to 25

Having referred to the calculations made in the course of the preparatory work, indicating the contributions of each of the Contracting States under both systems, Main Committee II considered, by a majority, that the existing text of Article 38, paragraph 3, was more equitable and should be retained, subject to a few drafting improvements.

4. Paragraph 4 of the same Article in the 1972 published text provides that, when determining the special contributions of the Contracting States, as recalled above, international applications filed pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) which designate a Contracting State are to be regarded as applications filed in that State. It is already known that these contributions are determined on the basis of the number of patent applications filed in the last year but one prior to that of entry into force of the Convention. One national delegation pointed out that, if it were generally agreed that the Convention would enter into force in 1976 or 1977, the reference year for determining the contributions would be 1974 or 1975. The PCT would probably not have entered into force by that time, at least for the States which are parties to the European Convention, particularly since the Member States of the European Economic Community have announced that they will not ratify the PCT before the Convention on the Grant of European Patents. Thus, Article 38, paragraph 4, would have no effect and could therefore be deleted. However, after making this deletion, Main Committee III agreed unanimously that if in respect of some States which are parties to the European Convention the PCT entered into force two years before the former, international applications having effect in those States would as a matter of course be regarded as national applications.

5. If the budget has not been adopted at the beginning of the accounting period, the President of the European Patent Office is authorised, under Article 45, paragraph 1, to effect expenditures on a monthly basis per heading or other division of the budget, up to one-twelfth of the budget appropriations for the preceding accounting period, provided that these appropriations shall not exceed one-twelfth of those provided for in the draft budget.

Paragraph 2 of the same Article provides that the Administrative Council may, subject to the observance of the other conditions laid down in paragraph 1, authorise expenditure in excess of one-twelfth of the appropriations.

Following a proposal from a national delegation, the question was raised whether the one-twelfth referred to in paragraph 2 was one-twelfth of the appropriations of the preceding accounting period or one-twelfth of those of the draft budget, or of either, depending on the situations with which the Administrative Council was presented.

Main Committee III considered that the text of paragraphs 1 and 2 should not be amended and that the limit of one-twelfth of the appropriations for the preceding accounting period would have to be complied with, whereas the limit on one-twelfth of the appropriations provided for in the draft budget could be exceeded, on authorisation by the Administrative Council.

6. Article 47, paragraph 4, was amended to specify that the Administrative Council must approve the annual accounts and the report of the auditors.