Editing Unitary patent (section)

===2000 to 2004: EU Regulation proposal===
In 2000, renewed efforts from the European Union resulted in a Community Patent [[European Union regulation|Regulation]] proposal, sometimes abbreviated as '''CPR'''. It provides that the patent, once it has been granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) in one of its procedural languages (English, German or French) and published in that language, with a translation of the claims into the two other procedural languages, will be valid without any further translation. This proposal is aimed to achieve a considerable reduction in translation costs.

Nevertheless, additional translations could become necessary in legal proceedings against a suspected infringer. In such a situation, a suspected infringer who has been unable to consult the text of the patent in the official language of the Member State in which he is domiciled, is presumed, until proven otherwise, not to have knowingly infringed the patent. To protect a suspected infringer who, in such a situation, has not acted in a deliberate manner, it is provided that the proprietor of the patent will not be able to obtain damages in respect of the period prior to the translation of the patent being notified to the infringer.

The proposed Community Patent Regulation should also establish a court holding exclusive jurisdiction to invalidate issued patents; thus, a Community Patent's validity will be the same in all EU member states. This court will be attached to the present [[European Court of Justice]] and [[Court of First Instance]] through use of provisions in the [[Treaty of Nice]].

Discussion regarding the Community patent had made clear progress in 2003 when a political agreement was reached on 3 March 2003. However, one year later in March 2004 under the Irish [[Presidency of the Council of the European Union|presidency]], the [[Council of the European Union#Configurations|Competitiveness Council]] failed to agree on the details of the Regulation. In particular the time delays for translating the claims and the authentic text of the claims in case of an infringement remained problematic issues throughout discussions and in the end proved insoluble.

In view of the difficulties in reaching an agreement on the community patent,<ref>Axel H. Horns, [http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/138-A-Unified-European-Patent-System-The-Historical-Perspective.html#extended A Unified European Patent System – The Historical Perspective] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120415050419/http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?%2Farchives%2F138-A-Unified-European-Patent-System-The-Historical-Perspective.html#extended |date=15 April 2012 }}, IP::JUR blog, 18 February 2010. Consulted on 20 February 2010.</ref> other legal agreements have been proposed outside the European Union legal framework to reduce the cost of translation (of patents when granted) and [[lawsuit|litigation]], namely the [[London Agreement (2000)|London Agreement]], which entered into force on 1 May 2008—and which has reduced the number of countries requiring translation of European patents granted nowadays under the European Patent Convention, and the corresponding costs to obtain a European patent<ref>Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Malwina Mejer, [https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10657-009-9118-6 "The London Agreement and the cost of patenting in Europe"], [[European Journal of Law and Economics]], Vol. 29, Number 2, April 2010, pp. 211–237.</ref>—and the [[European Patent Litigation Agreement]] (EPLA), a proposal that has now lapsed.

====Reactions to the failure====
[[Image:ProdiBari.jpg|right|thumb|[[Romano Prodi]] (here on a picture taken in 2006) cited the failure to agree on a Europewide patent as a weak point of his five-year term as [[President of the European Commission]].]]
After the council in March 2004, [[European Commission|EU Commissioner]] [[Frits Bolkestein]] said that "The failure to agree on the Community Patent I am afraid undermines the credibility of the whole enterprise to make Europe the most competitive economy in the world by 2010." Adding:

{{blockquote|It is a mystery to me how Ministers at the so-called 'Competitiveness Council' can keep a straight face when they adopt conclusions for the Spring European Council on making Europe more competitive and yet in the next breath backtrack on the political agreement already reached on the main principles of the Community Patent in March of last year. I can only hope that one day the vested, [[protectionism|protectionist]] interests that stand in the way of agreement on this vital measure will be sidelined by the over-riding importance and interests of European manufacturing industry and Europe's competitiveness. That day has not yet come.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/04/58| title = Commission Press Communique, 12 March 2004, "Results of the Competitiveness Council of Ministers, Brussels, 11 March 2004 Internal Market, Enterprise and Consumer Protection issues"}}</ref>}}

Jonathan Todd, Commission's Internal Market spokesman, declared:
{{blockquote|Normally, after the common political approach, the text of the regulation is agreed very quickly. Instead, some Member States appear to have changed their positions. (...) It is extremely unfortunate that European industry's competitiveness, innovation and R&D are being sacrificed for the sake of preserving narrow vested interests.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://cordis.europa.eu/itt/itt-en/04-3/policy03.htm| title = cordis.europa.eu, ''Patently unclear'', 26 May 2004}}</ref>}}

European Commission President [[Romano Prodi]], asked to evaluate his five-year term, cited as his weak point the failure of many EU governments to implement the "[[Lisbon Agenda]]", agreed in 2001. In particular, he cited the failure to agree on a Europewide patent, or even the languages to be used for such a patent, "because member states did not accept a change in the rules; they were not coherent".<ref>[[The Wall Street Journal]], 25 October 2004</ref>