Sittings · Compare

What changed

From · opinion parliamentary committee draft · 2023-10-02 INTA-PA-753729 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Standard essential patents and amending Regulation (EU)2017/1001

→

To · Plenary report · 2024-01-30 A-9-2024-0016 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on standard essential patents and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1001

+1308 added · −393 removed · 222 modified paragraphs hide unchanged text

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on standard essential patents and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1001

(COM(2023)0232 – C90147/2023 – 2023/0133(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2023)0232),

– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C90147/2023),

– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 20 September 2023,

– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the opinions of the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection,– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0016/2024),

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Amendment 1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Amendment 2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Amendment 3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2 a (new)

Amendment 4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2 b (new)

Amendment 5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3

Amendment 6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Amendment 7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4 a (new)

Amendment 8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Amendment 9

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Amendment 10

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Amendment 11

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7 a (new)

Amendment 12

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10 a (new)

Amendment 13

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10 b (new)

Amendment 14

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Amendment 15

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 a (new)

Amendment 16

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Amendment 17

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 a (new)

Amendment 18

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14

Amendment 19

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 15

Amendment 20

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Amendment 21

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16 a (new)

Amendment 22

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Amendment 23

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Amendment 24

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Amendment 25

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22

Amendment 26

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Amendment 27

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23 a (new)

Amendment 28

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 24

Amendment 29

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Amendment 30

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27

Amendment 31

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 29

Amendment 32

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30

Amendment 33

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 31

Amendment 34

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32

Amendment 35

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33

Amendment 36

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 34

Amendment 37

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 35

Amendment 38

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 36

Amendment 39

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 37

Amendment 40

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 38

Amendment 41

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 39

Amendment 42

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 40

Amendment 43

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 41

Amendment 44

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 42

Amendment 45

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 43

Amendment 46

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 44

Amendment 47

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 45

Amendment 48

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 45 a (new)

Amendment 49

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 46

Amendment 50

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 46 a (new)

Amendment 51

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 46 b (new)

Amendment 52

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 47

Amendment 53

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 48

Amendment 54

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Amendment 55

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 3

Amendment 56

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 4

Amendment 57

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 5

Amendment 58

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Amendment 59

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Amendment 60

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)

Amendment 61

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Amendment 62

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Amendment 63

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Amendment 64

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new)

Amendment 65

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11

Amendment 66

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 13

Amendment 67

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 16

Amendment 68

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 17 a (new)

Amendment 69

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 17 b (new)

Amendment 70

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 17 c (new)

Amendment 71

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)

Amendment 72

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a

Amendment 73

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b

Amendment 74

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c

Amendment 75

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point d

Amendment 76

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point f

Amendment 77

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point g – point i

Amendment 78

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point g – point ii

Amendment 79

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point g – point iii

Amendment 80

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point g – point iv

Amendment 81

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point h

Amendment 82

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point j

Amendment 83

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 1

Amendment 84

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 2

Amendment 85

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point b

Amendment 86

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point c

Amendment 87

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point f

Amendment 88

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point h

Amendment 89

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point i

Amendment 90

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point j

Amendment 91

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point c

Amendment 92

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point d

Amendment 93

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point f

Amendment 94

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Amendment 95

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 1

Amendment 96

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point b

Amendment 97

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point c

Amendment 98

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point d

Amendment 99

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 3

Amendment 100

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Amendment 101

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 1

Amendment 102

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 5

Amendment 103

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a

Amendment 104

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b

Amendment 105

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 – title

Amendment 106

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a

Amendment 107

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b

Amendment 108

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Amendment 109

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point g

Amendment 110

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point h

Amendment 111

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point i

Amendment 112

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point j

Amendment 113

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point k

Amendment 114

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Amendment 115

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 1 b (new)

Amendment 116

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Amendment 117

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b

Amendment 118

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1

Amendment 119

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1

Amendment 120

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2

Amendment 121

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Amendment 122

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 1

Amendment 123

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)

Amendment 124

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)

Amendment 125

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Amendment 126

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 3

Amendment 127

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 5

Amendment 128

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6

Amendment 129

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1

Amendment 130

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – title

Amendment 131

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point e

Amendment 132

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 4

Amendment 133

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 7

Amendment 134

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 8

Amendment 135

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 1

Amendment 136

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 4

Amendment 137

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 5

Amendment 138

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 6

Amendment 139

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 8 – introductory part

Amendment 140

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 8 – point b

Amendment 141

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 8 – point b a (new)

Amendment 142

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 8 a (new)

Amendment 143

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 9 – introductory part

Amendment 144

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 9 – point a

Amendment 145

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 10

Amendment 146

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 11

Amendment 147

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Amendment 148

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 – paragraph 5

Amendment 149

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 – paragraph 6

Amendment 150

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 – paragraph 1

Amendment 151

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 – paragraph 3

Amendment 152

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 – paragraph 4

Amendment 153

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 – paragraph 3

Amendment 154

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Amendment 155

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 – paragraph 5

Amendment 156

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 – paragraph 8

Amendment 157

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 – paragraph 1

Amendment 158

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 – paragraph 2

Amendment 159

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 – paragraph 3

Amendment 160

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 – paragraph 4

Amendment 161

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 5 – introductory part

Amendment 162

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 5 – point a

Amendment 163

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 2

Amendment 164

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point a (new)

Amendment 165

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point b (new)

Amendment 166

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 2 - subparagraph 1 a (new)

Amendment 167

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 1

Amendment 168

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 1

Amendment 169

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 4

Amendment 170

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Amendment 171

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1

Amendment 172

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 3

Amendment 173

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 4

Amendment 174

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 3

Amendment 175

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 5

Amendment 176

Proposal for a regulation

Article 34 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Amendment 177

Proposal for a regulation

Article 34 – paragraph 4

Amendment 178

Proposal for a regulation

Article 34 – paragraph 5

Amendment 179

Proposal for a regulation

Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point d

Amendment 180

Proposal for a regulation

Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point f

Amendment 181

Proposal for a regulation

Article 36 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Amendment 182

Proposal for a regulation

Article 37 – paragraph 1

Amendment 183

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 1

Amendment 184

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 2

Amendment 185

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

Amendment 186

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 3 – point a

Amendment 187

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 3 – point b

Amendment 188

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Amendment 189

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 4 – point a

Amendment 190

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 4 – point b

Amendment 191

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 4 – point c

Amendment 192

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 4 – point d

Amendment 193

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Amendment 194

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 5

Amendment 195

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 6

Amendment 196

Proposal for a regulation

Article 39 – title

Amendment 197

Proposal for a regulation

Article 39 – paragraph 1

Amendment 198

Proposal for a regulation

Article 39 – paragraph 2

Amendment 199

Proposal for a regulation

Article 40 – title

Amendment 200

Proposal for a regulation

Article 40 – paragraph 1

Amendment 201

Proposal for a regulation

Article 40 – paragraph 2

Amendment 202

Proposal for a regulation

Article 42 – paragraph 1

Amendment 203

Proposal for a regulation

Article 42 – paragraph 2

Amendment 204

Proposal for a regulation

Article 43 – paragraph 1

Amendment 205

Proposal for a regulation

Article 44 – paragraph 1

Amendment 206

Proposal for a regulation

Article 44 – paragraph 2

Amendment 207

Proposal for a regulation

Article 44 – paragraph 3

Amendment 208

Proposal for a regulation

Article 45 – paragraph 1

Amendment 209

Proposal for a regulation

Article 45 – paragraph 2

Amendment 210

Proposal for a regulation

Article 45 – paragraph 3

Amendment 211

Proposal for a regulation

Article 45 – paragraph 5

Amendment 212

Proposal for a regulation

Article 46 – paragraph 1 – point a

Amendment 213

Proposal for a regulation

Article 46 – paragraph 1 – point b

Amendment 214

Proposal for a regulation

Article 46 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Amendment 215

Proposal for a regulation

Article 46 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Amendment 216

Proposal for a regulation

Article 46 – paragraph 3

Amendment 217

Proposal for a regulation

Article 47 – paragraph 2

Amendment 218

Proposal for a regulation

Article 48 – paragraph 1

Amendment 219

Proposal for a regulation

Article 48 – paragraph 2

Amendment 220

Proposal for a regulation

Article 49 – paragraph 1

Amendment 221

Proposal for a regulation

Article 50 – paragraph 1

Amendment 222

Proposal for a regulation

Article 50 – paragraph 3

Amendment 223

Proposal for a regulation

Article 51 – title

Amendment 224

Proposal for a regulation

Article 51 – paragraph 1

Amendment 225

Proposal for a regulation

Article 52 – paragraph 1

Amendment 226

Proposal for a regulation

Article 53 – paragraph 1

Amendment 227

Proposal for a regulation

Article 54 – paragraph 1

Amendment 228

Proposal for a regulation

Article 54 – paragraph 2

Amendment 229

Proposal for a regulation

Article 54 – paragraph 3

Amendment 230

Proposal for a regulation

Article 55 – paragraph 1

Amendment 231

Proposal for a regulation

Article 55 – paragraph 2

Amendment 232

Proposal for a regulation

Article 56 – paragraph 1 – point b

Amendment 233

Proposal for a regulation

Article 56 – paragraph 1 – point c

Amendment 234

Proposal for a regulation

Article 56 – paragraph 1 – point d

Amendment 235

Proposal for a regulation

Article 56 – paragraph 4

Amendment 236

Proposal for a regulation

Article 57 – paragraph 1

Amendment 237

Proposal for a regulation

Article 57 – paragraph 2 -– point d

Amendment 238

Proposal for a regulation

Article 58 – paragraph 1

Amendment 239

Proposal for a regulation

Article 60 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Amendment 240

Proposal for a regulation

Article 61 – title

Amendment 241

Proposal for a regulation

Article 61 – paragraph 1

Amendment 242

Proposal for a regulation

Article 61 – paragraph 1 – point a (new)

Amendment 243

Proposal for a regulation

Article 61 – paragraph 1 – point b (new)

Amendment 244

Proposal for a regulation

Article 61 – paragraph 1 – point c (new)

Amendment 245

Proposal for a regulation

Article 61 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Amendment 246

Proposal for a regulation

Article 61 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Amendment 247

Proposal for a regulation

Article 61 – paragraph 2

Amendment 248

Proposal for a regulation

Article 61 – paragraph 3

Amendment 249

Proposal for a regulation

Article 61 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Amendment 250

Proposal for a regulation

Article 62 – paragraph 2

Amendment 251

Proposal for a regulation

Article 62 – paragraph 3

Amendment 252

Proposal for a regulation

Article 62 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Amendment 253

Proposal for a regulation

Article 63 – paragraph 4

Amendment 254

Proposal for a regulation

Article 65 a (new)

Amendment 255

Proposal for a regulation

Article 65 b (new)

Amendment 256

Proposal for a regulation

Article 65 c (new)

Amendment 257

Proposal for a regulation

Article 66 – paragraph 1

Amendment 258

Proposal for a regulation

Article 66 – paragraph 4

Amendment 259

Proposal for a regulation

Article 67 – paragraph 2

Amendment 260

Proposal for a regulation

Article 67 – paragraph 3

Amendment 261

Proposal for a regulation

Article 67 – paragraph 6

Amendment 262

Proposal for a regulation

Article 70 – paragraph 1

Amendment 263

Proposal for a regulation

Article 70 – paragraph 1 – point a (new)

Amendment 264

Proposal for a regulation

Article 70 – paragraph 1 – point b (new)

Amendment 265

Proposal for a regulation

Article 70 – paragraph 1 – point c (new)

Amendment 266

Proposal for a regulation

Article 70 – paragraph 2

Amendment 267

Proposal for a regulation

Article 70 – paragraph 3

Amendment 268

Proposal for a regulation

Article 70 – paragraph 4

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

A Standard Essential Patent (SEP) is a patent protecting a technology that has been declared essential for the implementation of a technical standard adopted by a standardisation body The interplay between patents and standards is important for innovation and growth, as these patents incentivise research and development and enable an adequate return on investment for innovative companies. Standards ensure a broad uptake of interoperable and secure technologies among businesses and consumers. Worldwide, there are around 75 000 SEPs, but these only represent a small share of patents as a whole. Essential technology standards such as 5G and Wi-Fi, photo formats (JPEG), standards for audio and video compression and decompression (e.g. MPEG, HEVC) and more are covered by such patents. SEPS play a crucial role in developments such as the Internet of Things, Industry 4.0, connected vehicles, smart cities and climate change mitigation technologies. The number of SEPs has increased sixfold over the last ten years, which is good news, given that the protection of SEPs is key to enabling innovation that helps the EU to become more sustainable and more digital.

As early as November 2021, in its resolution on an intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s recovery and resilience (EP resolution on the intellectual property action plan), the European Parliament called for a European Commission proposal on SEPs, as SEPs are often the subject of litigation. The lack of transparency and legal certainty was identified as an issue. The licensing of SEPs is often a lengthy and costly exercise for both patent holders and technology implementers.

Ordinary patent holders are free to decide to whom they wish to grant a licence to exploit their innovation. However, SEP holders do not have this complete freedom, as the inclusion of their patented technology in a standard gives them some degree of market power. Therefore, SEP holders are obliged to grant their licences on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. These FRAND terms have led to a large number of problems, which have also been the subject of court proceedings.

On the one hand, it is near impossible for implementers to find out whether a standard is indeed essential, how many SEPs relate to a given standard, who the corresponding SEP holders are and what the ultimate costs to achieve market entry using the relevant standard will be. Around 84% of SEP implementers are SMEs. For them in particular, the mere threat of a provisional injunction leading to a suspension of production of allegedly infringing products and the probability of legal proceedings may create pressure to agree to a licence at rates that may not be FRAND.

On the other hand, the SEP holder cannot enforce his legitimate interests while the implementer insists on having a licence issued on FRAND terms, with the intention of putting off the obligation to pay royalties for as long as possible. As a result, SEP holders also face lengthy and costly court proceedings, with royalties only being paid at the end of this prolonged procedure.

In order to provide a better factual basis for preventing, resolving and deciding on conflicts relating to FRAND terms, on 27 April 2023, the European Commission submitted a proposal with the following new measures:

1. the establishment of an SEP register and a central electronic database for SEPs;

2. SEP essentiality checks;

3. non-binding determination of the aggregate royalty for a standard;

4. the establishment of a time-limited out-of-court dispute resolution mechanism under expert guidance that can be used by SEP holders and implementers when negotiating a FRAND licence.

In general, the rapporteur supports the Commission’s initiative and the proposed measures, as the Commission has acted in accordance with the EP resolution on the intellectual property action plan.

The rapporteur stresses the importance of increasing the proposal’s legal clarity and bridging the interests of SEP holders and implementers. Both actors play a huge role in the European economy and their interests must therefore be taken into account in the context of a well-balanced legislative act. The proposal must increase the transparency of SEPs in order to compensate for the knowledge advantage of SEP holders, yet without limiting their global competitiveness.

More legal clarity

Knowing which use cases of standards fall under the new legislation is massively important for legal clarity. While the rapporteur agrees that the Commission should address this issue through delegated acts, she believes it is crucial that certain criteria be established already now. For this reason, the rapporteur has proposed amendments to this effect, including a definition of ‘significant difficulties or inefficiencies’.

The rapporteur has also incorporated new definitions which make the text easier to understand.

Creation of a competence centre within the EUIPO and registration

The rapporteur considers that establishing a competence centre at the EUIPO is a sensible proposal, given that the European executive agency has a lot of experience in maintaining databases. It is important that this agency is equipped with sufficient staff and funds to carry out the new task efficiently.

Furthermore, the rapporteur notes the importance of clarifying the difference between the register and the database, of ensuring the accuracy of the register and of preventing potential red tape for SEP holders.

Patent Pools

The rapporteur is in favour of patent pools. If managed in a transparent manner, they provide great added value for SEP holders and implementers. It should however be ensured that this transparency is actually reflected in the information provided, including on the website. To support this, the rapporteur has put forward proposals to that effect.

Essentiality checks

In the EP resolution on an intellectual property action plan, the EP called for an independent, neutral and transparent system for third party essentiality checks. The rapporteur welcomes the fact that the European Commission has taken this on board and proposed a system for assessing the essentiality of patents.

It should be noted that evaluators and conciliators in the FRAND determination procedure should possess the necessary and highly specialised expertise and experience while also being independent and impartial.

In addition, evaluators should also be able to review prior essentiality checks if they have doubts as to their accuracy.

Determination of aggregate royalty

The non-binding determination of the aggregate royalty will help stakeholders to set efficient SEP rates.

The rapporteur believes that it should not be possible to unilaterally block this assessment and has therefore proposed amendments to this effect.

Time-limited out-of-court dispute resolution mechanism

In the EP resolution on an intellectual property action plan, the Commission was also asked to provide more clarity on various aspects of FRAND, and to consider possible incentives for more efficient SEP licensing negotiations and reducing litigation. It also took this request on board, proposing a non-binding dispute resolution system, which has the potential to eliminate strategic delays caused by market participants. The rapporteur welcomes the fact that, on the basis of a third party opinion, this market participant can be asked to provide a security in a very timely manner and realistic and effective in scale.

At the same time, the rapporteur believes that while proceedings are still ongoing, the parties should not yet be obliged to make a binding decision on whether or not they should comply with the outcome of the procedure. The parties should be able to make such a decision only after learning the outcome of the dispute resolution mechanism.

In addition, the rapporteur believes that parallel proceedings should only lead to the termination of the dispute resolution mechanism if the other party so wishes. This is to prevent the procedure from being stopped on account of legal action in a third country.

Micro and small and medium enterprises

In some future-oriented SEP sectors, such as the Internet of Things, 85% of companies are MSMEs. MSMEs usually have limited human and financial resources and therefore the rapporteur strengthens the Commission’s proposals in this regard. She proposes the establishment of a one-stop shop for MSMEs within the competence centre. MSMEs that are SEP implementers should be offered free information on what licences they need for their products or services and how to obtain them. MSMEs that are SEP holders should be offered free information on how to better identify potential licensees and how to effectively enforce their rights. However, this help should only benefit MSMEs whose business models are not solely based on asserting patents.

Assessment of the new instruments

These proposed instruments have the potential to make SEP licensing significantly more efficient. They can reduce inefficiencies and transaction costs in licensing, thereby facilitating licensing negotiations, speeding up their outcomes and reducing costly and laborious litigation procedures. This would make the EU single market a more attractive location for industry standard-setting innovation. However, as the proposed measures also have an impact at global level, the rapporteur believes that the impact on the competitiveness of European SEP holders at global level and on innovation in Europe should also be examined in more detail. If the outcome of this review indicates a negative impact, the Commission should propose appropriate amendments where necessary.

ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that she has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the report, until the adoption thereof in committee:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

28.11.2023

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE

for the Committee on Legal Affairs

on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Standard essential patents and amending Regulation (EU)2017/1001

(COM(2023)0232 – C90147/2023 – 2023\0133(COD))

Rapporteur for opinion: Danuta Maria Hübner

AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Recital 2

Amendment 2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Amendment 4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Amendment 5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Amendment 6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Amendment 7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 15

Amendment 8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Amendment 9

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Amendment 10

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Amendment 11

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22

Amendment 12

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Amendment 13

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33

Amendment 14

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 34

Amendment 15

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 35

Amendment 16

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 36

Amendment 17

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 40

Amendment 18

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 44

Amendment 19

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 45

Amendment 20

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 46

Amendment 21

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 47

Amendment 22

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 48

Amendment 23

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 49

Amendment 24

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 2

Amendment 25

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 3

Amendment 26

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 4

Amendment 27

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 5

Amendment 28

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Amendment 29

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Amendment 30

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Amendment 31

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 16

Amendment 32

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point f

Amendment 33

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 3

Amendment 34

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point c

Amendment 35

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point f

Amendment 36

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point d

Amendment 37

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point g

Amendment 38

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point h

Amendment 39

Proposal for a Regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 1

Justification

The amendments reflects the fact that the European Union competence and jurisdiction is limited to European patents, and as such the Union does not have jurisdiction in respect of patent rights granted by non-EU states.

Data expressed by numerical values such as royalty rates, product volumes, etc cannot be reduced to a non-confidential form.

Amendment 40

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Amendment 41

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8

Amendment 42

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1

Amendment 43

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Amendment 44

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15

Amendment 45

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16

Amendment 46

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17

Amendment 47

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18

Amendment 48

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 – paragraph 1

Amendment 49

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 – paragraph 2

Amendment 50

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 – paragraph 3

Amendment 51

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 – paragraph 4

Amendment 52

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 – paragraph 3

Amendment 53

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Amendment 54

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 – paragraph 5

Amendment 55

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 2

Amendment 56

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 5 – introductory part

Amendment 57

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 5 – point b

Amendment 58

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 2

Amendment 59

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 5

Amendment 60

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 6

Amendment 61

Proposal for a regulation

Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point d

Amendment 62

Proposal for a regulation

Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point f

Amendment 63

Proposal for a regulation

Article 37 – paragraph 2

Amendment 64

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 2

Amendment 65

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

Amendment 66

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 3 – point a

Amendment 67

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 3 – point b

Amendment 68

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Amendment 69

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 4 – point a

Amendment 70

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 4 – point b

Amendment 71

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Amendment 72

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 – paragraph 5

Amendment 73

Proposal for a regulation

Article 39

Amendment 74

Proposal for a regulation

Article 42 – paragraph 1

Amendment 75

Proposal for a regulation

Article 42 – paragraph 2

Amendment 76

Proposal for a regulation

Article 44 – paragraph 1

Amendment 77

Proposal for a regulation

Article 44 – paragraph 2

Amendment 78

Proposal for a regulation

Article 44 – paragraph 3

Amendment 79

Proposal for a regulation

Article 45 – paragraph 1

Amendment 80

Proposal for a regulation

Article 45 – paragraph 2

Amendment 81

Proposal for a regulation

Article 45 – paragraph 3

Amendment 82

Proposal for a regulation

Article 45 – paragraph 5

Amendment 83

Proposal for a regulation

Article 46 – paragraph 1 – point a

Amendment 84

Proposal for a regulation

Article 46 – paragraph 1 – point b

Amendment 85

Proposal for a regulation

Article 46 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Amendment 86

Proposal for a regulation

Article 46 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Amendment 87

Proposal for a regulation

Article 47 – paragraph 2

Amendment 88

Proposal for a regulation

Article 50 – paragraph 1

Amendment 89

Proposal for a regulation

Article 50 – paragraph 3

Amendment 90

Proposal for a regulation

Article 55 – paragraph 1

Amendment 91

Proposal for a regulation

Article 55 – paragraph 2

Amendment 92

Proposal for a regulation

Article 56 – paragraph 1 – point b

Amendment 93

Proposal for a regulation

Article 56 – paragraph 1 – point c

Amendment 94

Proposal for a regulation

Article 56 – paragraph 1 – point d

Amendment 95

Proposal for a regulation

Article 56 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)

Amendment 96

Proposal for a regulation

Article 61

Amendment 97

Proposal for a regulation

Article 63 – paragraph 2 – point a

Amendment 98

Proposal for a regulation

Article 63 – paragraph 2 – point b

Amendment 99

Proposal for a regulation

Article 63 – paragraph 3 – point a

Amendment 100

Proposal for a regulation

Article 63 – paragraph 3 – point b

Amendment 101

Proposal for a regulation

Article 64 – paragraph 2

Amendment 102

Proposal for a regulation

Article 66

Amendment 103

Proposal for a regulation

Article 68 – paragraph 2

Amendment 104

Proposal for a regulation

Article 70 – paragraph 1

Amendment 105

Proposal for a regulation

Article 70 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Amendment 106

Proposal for a regulation

Article 70 – paragraph 2

Amendment 107

Proposal for a regulation

Article 70 – paragraph 3

Amendment 108

Proposal for a regulation

Article 70 – paragraph 4

Amendment 109

Proposal for a regulation

Article 72 – paragraph 2

Amendment 110

Proposal for a regulation

Article 72 – paragraph 2 a (new)

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that she has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the opinion, until the adoption thereof in committee:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

5.12.2023

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

IMCO fully supports the objective of the draft proposal to improve the licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs). Such improvement aligns with our European goals of fostering innovation, enhancing the digital transition, and ensuring that Europe is a frontrunner in new technologies, thereby encouraging the voluntary participation of European businesses in the European standardization process and ensuring the broadest possible implementation of standardized technologies.

SEPs play a pivotal role in the broader objectives of achieving a seamless single market and ensuring Europe's global competitiveness. Their central role in promoting technological innovation aligns with the emphasis on socio-economic recovery and encourages businesses to invest in the research and development of new technologies, which benefits our entire economy. At the same time we should ensure that SMEs, crucial for the Single Market, are not left behind in the technological race, that access to these technologies remains fair, and that patent holders do not abuse their power to hinder competition.

Given this broader context, which underscores the importance of integrating technology, innovation, and fair competition within the European -technological landscape, it is clear that standard essential patents (SEPs) are vital in achieving these goals. The proposal's overarching objective, which is to streamline and improve the licensing of SEPs, is certainly commendable in light of these ambitions. It aligns with the larger vision of fostering a more cohesive, innovative, and competitive European Union. However, while its intentions are in the right direction, specific areas within the proposal need closer examination.

First, the scope of the Regulation should include all SEPs, present and future. Without such inclusivity, the benefits of transparency and reduced litigation will not be fully realized. They will continue to be subject to the issues this regulation seeks to address, including protracted litigation over the appropriate FRAND values for these SEPs. It is, therefore, imperative to extend the scope of application to all SEPs.

Existing SEPs should be allowed to be registered to ensure that legacy technologies remain both accessible and competitive. The current agreement should still be enforceable even if an existing SEP is not registered. It is only upon submission to the register that all related rules should apply. Consequently, Article 24 of the proposal should be revised to eliminate penalties associated with non-registration of these SEPs.

Second, both SEP holders and implementers should be able to request checks and determinations, and they should be able to do so with a lower threshold, particularly for SME implementers.

In keeping our commitment to transparency and inclusivity, the SEP information database must be accessible to all. While it is understandable to impose fees for specialized checks—like determining a patent's essentiality or FRAND value - the overarching costs for the database's upkeep should fall to the EUIPO. This ensures that a diverse group, from researchers to the general public, can access the information without bearing the financial burden. However, in case of certain type of information in the database, like non-confidential information on FRAND determinations, expert opinions referred to in Article 18 or non-confidential reports of the conciliators, access to it may be subject to the payment of a fee where justified.

Lastly, the draft opinion introduces technical corrections and clarifications to the proposal. In addition to correcting the terminology, this involves clarifying that the mechanisms to determine a SEP's FRAND value and essentiality are separate from the standardization process itself.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to take the following into account:

Amendment 1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3

Amendment 2

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Recital 4

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

The proposed Regulation is based on the understanding that there are concerns about SEP licensing and, in particular, about SEP licensing in future IoT industries. However, current evidence is inconclusive (see the "Empirical Assessment"), and the proposed measures are therefore in contrast with the Better Regulation principles, which require that any intervention in the markets is evidence-based. The Regulation should therefore not apply where significant difficulties or inefficiencies are not observed.

Amendment 3

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Recital 5

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~Considering that there is no evidence of market failure in the impact assessment, the recital should be deleted and, more generally, there should not be retroactive effect (unless duly justified).~~

Amendment 4

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Recital 67

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~The recital lacks a clear rationale and a clear scope. Regulations need total clarity as not to create legal uncertainty.~~

Amendment 5

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Recital 8

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

Amendment 6

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

~~Recital 10~~

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

Determination of validity and infringement of patent procedures are a prerequisite to any EU court determination of FRAND terms. It should therefore not be delayed by the FRAND determination procedure as provided in the COM Proposal.

~~Amendment 7~~

~~Proposal for a Regulation~~

Recital 13

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 7

~~Justification~~

Proposal for a regulation

~~For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.~~

~~Amendment 8~~

~~Proposal for a Regulation~~

Recital 15

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 8

~~Justification~~

Proposal for a regulation

~~For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.~~

~~Amendment 9~~

~~Proposal for a Regulation~~

Recital 16

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 9

~~Justification~~

Proposal for a regulation

A provision for SEP holders to collectively set an aggregate royalty for their SEPs risks a breach of competition law principles. The aggregate royalty may, in any event, be calculated from individual rates that SEP holders are encouraged to publish. The determination of an aggregate royalty for an entire standard and specific use cases that the Commission proposes is fraught with difficulty and it has so far only been attempted a few times by national courts outside the EU. The few such cases have so far clearly demonstrated that the determination of an aggregate royalty for SEPs is a task that belongs to the courts of law. More generally, the Commission proposal appears to allow top-down price regulation, which is an infringement of Union principles unless there is a clear evidence of market failure (which in this case is absent). This provision should therefore be removed.

~~Amendment 10~~

~~Proposal for a Regulation~~

Recital 18

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 10

~~Justification~~

Proposal for a regulation

~~For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.~~

~~Amendment 11~~

~~Proposal for a Regulation~~

Recital 20

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 11

~~Justification~~

Proposal for a regulation

This provision is not compatible with the fundamental property right, granted under Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01) TFEU, namely the right to damages, and its non-observance should not be allowed merely in order to encourage compliance with an administrative procedure. It also runs counter Article13(1) of the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC).

~~Amendment 12~~

~~Proposal for a Regulation~~

Recital 23

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 12

~~Justification~~

Proposal for a regulation

~~The EUIPO is not a court. Removal from the register renders a patent unenforceable.~~

Recital 24

Amendment 13

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Recital 25 a (new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~Essentiality checks are highly time consuming and it would be a too big work burden to redo annually.~~

Amendment 14

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Recital 2631

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

The scope for implementers to each nominate up to 100 patents per year for essentiality checking has the potential to overwhelm the competence centre and could be used to "game" the system and cause further delays to licensing.

Amendment 15

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Recital 3032

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 16

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Recital 33

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~The Regulation should not affect access to courts which should remain available during FRAND determination.~~

Amendment 17

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Recital 34

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

The one-sided continuation can be used in bad faith to cause further delay without risk. Furthermore, because a one-sided continuation is inherently unreliable and will be biased against the absent party, it is effectively a punitive measure. It seems inappropriate to introduce punitive measures in this Regulation.

Amendment 18

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Recital 35

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

Commitment to comply is not binding and can be manipulated according to one's own interests. Validity and infringement need to be addressed at the same time as FRAND determination. This provision further assists a bad faith one-sided continuation by placing the continuing party at a litigation advantage. Manipulation of the litigation positions, i.e. respective access to justice, to encourage use of this procedure is inadvisable for the reasons given above and is probably unlawful. A defence of lack of essentiality or invalidity takes time to conclude; this is another reason why the FRAND determination should proceed in parallel with any court proceedings.

Amendment 19

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Recital 37

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~This AM is needed for consistency with the idea that both parties have to agree to continue the FRAND determination (no one-sided continuation).~~

Amendment 20

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Recital 40

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~It should be allowed to any party to make the request to terminate the procedure.~~

Amendment 21

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Recital 4245

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

The cases mentioned in footnote 40 concerned consumer disputes with service providers under the Universal Services Directive. The CJEU held that a delay of 30 days for a mandatory dispute resolution procedure, in which there were no fees charged and the procedure itself was "transparent simple and inexpensive", was not unlawful, provided that interim measures remained available where necessary. This was in the context of reducing the workload on the courts concerning consumer debt for universal services, and the cases did not concern property rights of any kind and are not comparable to the context of this Regulation.Case C-75/16 similarly concerns consumer disputes with traders and a mandatory mediation scheme intended to protect consumers, and the outcome of that case is, once more, not comparable with the scheme proposed in the Regulation.

Amendment 22

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

~~Recital 44~~

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.~~

~~Amendment 23~~

~~Proposal for a Regulation~~

Recital 46

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 23

~~Justification~~

Proposal for a regulation

The European Commission has been actively promoting and funding the participation of European SMEs in EU standards efforts and the patenting of their inventions. This regulation should be consistent with this policy, and it should seek to promote European technological ambitions, including fostering the growth of EU technology champions.

~~Amendment 24~~

~~Proposal for a Regulation~~

Recital 47

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 24

~~Justification~~

Proposal for a regulation

~~Only use cases to the extent there is proof that they do not give rise to inefficiencies.~~

~~Amendment 25~~

~~Proposal for a Regulation~~

Recital 48

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 25

~~Justification~~

Proposal for a regulation

~~Only future standard and use cases should be covered in this Regulation, in order to ensure legal certainty.~~

Article 1 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Amendment 26

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

~~Recital 49~~

Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.~~

Amendment 27

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 2 – ~~introductory~~point ~~part~~b

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~The Regulation should apply to future standards, to have legal certainty.~~

Amendment 28

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 1 – paragraph ~~2 – point a~~3

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 29

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 1 – paragraph ~~2 – point b~~4

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 30

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 35

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~Paragraph no longer necessary under the revised structure.~~

Amendment 31

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

~~Article 1 – paragraph 4~~

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~Amendment 32~~

~~Proposal for a Regulation~~

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 32

~~Justification~~

Proposal for a regulation

~~The Regulation cannot extend beyond European patents that are essential and for which a FRAND commitment has been made.~~

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Amendment 33

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~Unless an implementer intends to use inventions that are protected by a European patent the implementer has no legal nexus with the European Union (unless they are resident in a Member State).~~

Amendment 34

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

~~Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10~~

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~No longer necessary under the revised structure.~~

~~Amendment 35~~

~~Proposal for a Regulation~~

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 35

~~Justification~~

Proposal for a regulation

~~See definition of SEP.~~

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)

Amendment 36

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

~~Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 15~~

Article 2 a (new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~No longer necessary under the revised structure.~~

Amendment 37

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 23 – paragraph 12 – point 16a

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

The current text of the definition of "patent family" is very difficult to implement because "cover the same invention" is open to interpretation and has a subjective element. The definition has important effects – see footnote 60 at page 68 of the Pilot Study for Essentiality Assessment of Standard Essential Patents published by the JRC – we therefore suggest using the ETSI patent family definition.

Amendment 38

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point fc

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 39

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 43 – paragraph 32 – point cf

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

It is unnecessary, burdensome and costly to require identification of all sections for which the standard is essential. Such a provision is likely to lead to further litigation and is not necessary for the purposes of establishing whether a patent is essential and therefore required to be licensed.

Amendment 40

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 43 – paragraph 42 – point bh

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

The COM proposal seems to be unnecessary because under Article 9 patent pools are required to publish lists of licensees by sector. For significant patent pools, this additional requirement would impose a large administrative burden. This amendment is also consistent with the deletion of the aggregate royalty and of the possibility to suspend SEPs from the register.

Amendment 41

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 43 – paragraph ~~4 –~~3 ~~point~~a f(new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

The COM proposal seems to be unnecessary because under Article 9 patent pools are required to publish lists of licensees by sector. For significant patent pools this additional requirement would impose a large administrative burden. This AM is also consistent with the deletion of the aggregate royalty and of the possibility to suspend SEPs from the register.

Amendment 42

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 43 – point gi

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

Amendment 43

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 54 – point c

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~The registration requirements constitute a heavy administrative burden and it is unjustified for the Commission to continuously change the set of requirements.~~

Amendment 44

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 54 – paragraph ~~2 – point~~4 a (new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

The registration of patent bibliographic data is administratively burdensome, costly, and duplicative, since all of this information (and much more) is readily available free of charge on the European Patent Office's "Espacenet" online database, which is a primary tool used by patent professionals.

Amendment 45

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 5 – paragraph ~~2 – point d~~1

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 46

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 2 – ~~point~~introductory fpart

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~Deletion of point (f) is consistent with the suggestions to protect confidentiality put forward in other AMs.~~

Amendment 47

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point gc

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~Deletion of point (g) is consistent with the deletion of aggregate royalty put forward in other AMs.~~

Amendment 48

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point hd

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~Deletion of point (h) is consistent with the deletion of aggregate royalty put forward in other AMs.~~

Amendment 49

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 65 – paragraph 12 – point k

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~Data expressed by numerical values such as royalty rates, product volumes, etc cannot be reduced to a non-confidential form.~~

Amendment 50

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 75 -– paragraph ~~- 1a (new)~~3

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 51

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 76 – paragraph 1 ~~– introductory part~~

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

Implementers using, or intending to use, standardised technologies should seek licenses for their use. The starting point is to inform the EUIPO competence centre of the uses they make. SEP holders are not in a position to do this, and it is necessary for implementers to engage.

Amendment 52

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 1 – ~~point~~introductory apart

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 53

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 7 – paragraph -1 1a– ~~(new)~~point a

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 54

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 87 – paragraph 1 – ~~introductory~~point ~~part~~b

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 55

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 87 – paragraph 1 ~~– point~~ a (new)

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 56

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 8 – paragraph 1 – ~~point~~introductory bpart

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~Point (b) is removed as this provision would require the SEP holder to act in breach of confidence and in breach of the contractual provisions governing the patent pool.~~

Amendment 57

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 98 – paragraph 1 – point gb

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the revised Article 7.~~

Amendment 58

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 108 – paragraph 21 – point b a (new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

Alternative dispute resolution proceedings are voluntary, contractual in nature and almost invariably agreed to be confidential. Usually, the existence of the proceedings is itself confidential. This provision could be read as endorsing or permitting breach of confidence and breach of contract.

Amendment 59

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

~~Article 11~~

Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point g

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

Alternative dispute resolution proceedings are voluntary, contractual in nature and confidential. This provision could endorse or permit breach of confidence/contract. It would undermine attempts at alternative dispute resolution for SEP licenses worldwide, nullifying the value of similar systems established by international arbitration institutions (e.g. ICC, LCIA, WIPO, AAA and many others). In addition, the EUIPO cannot be forcibly introduced to the confidentiality regimes of all SEP licensing resolution mechanisms, which are often established under non-EU jurisdictions.

Amendment 60

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 139 – paragraph 31 – point h

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

Alternative dispute resolution proceedings are voluntary, contractual in nature and almost invariably agreed to be confidential. Usually, the existence of the proceedings is itself confidential. This provision could lead to breach of confidence and breach of contract.

Amendment 61

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 139 – paragraph 41 a (new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the revised structure.~~

Amendment 62

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

~~Article 15~~

Article 9 – paragraph 1 b (new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

The provision for SEP holders to collectively set an aggregate royalty for their SEPs risks a breach of competition law principles. The aggregate royalty may, in any event, be calculated from individual rates that SEP holders are encouraged to publish. The determination of an aggregate royalty for an entire standard and specific use cases that the Commission proposes is fraught with difficulty and it has so far only been attempted a few times by national courts outside the EU. The few such cases have so far clearly demonstrated that the determination of an aggregate royalty for SEPs is a task that belongs to the courts of law. More generally, the Commission proposal appears to allow top-down price regulation, which is an infringement of Union principles unless there is a clear evidence of market failure (which in this case is absent). This provision should therefore be removed.

Amendment 63

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

~~Article 16~~

Article 11 – paragraph 1

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~See comment to Article 15.~~

Amendment 64

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

~~Article 17~~

Article 12 – paragraph 2

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~See comment to Article 15.~~

Amendment 65

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

~~Article 18~~

Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~See comments to Article 15.~~

Amendment 66

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 1914 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~Amended to reflect the removal of aggregate royalty rate.~~

Amendment 67

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 1914 – paragraph 24 a (new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~Amended to reflect the previous amendment.~~

Amendment 68

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2014 – paragraph 15

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~See definition of SEP.~~

Amendment 69

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2014 – paragraph 26

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~A recommendation is not a basis for essentiality; see the ETSI definitions.~~

Amendment 70

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2217 – paragraph 41

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~This provision has a wholly disproportionate effect since a suspended patent becomes unenforceable.~~

Amendment 71

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2217 – paragraph 52 a (new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~This provision has a wholly disproportionate effect, since a suspended patent becomes unenforceable.~~

Amendment 72

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2317 – paragraph 54 a (new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~This provision has a wholly disproportionate effect since a suspended patent becomes unenforceable.~~

Amendment 73

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2317 – paragraph 65

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~This provision has a wholly disproportionate effect since a suspended patent becomes unenforceable.~~

Amendment 74

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

~~Article 24~~

Article 17 – paragraph 6

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

This provision is incompatible with the fundamental property right granted under Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01) TFEU and its non-observance should not be allowed merely in order to encourage compliance with an administrative procedure.

Amendment 75

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2617 – paragraph ~~2 – introductory part~~7

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.~~

Amendment 76

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2617 – paragraph ~~2 – point a~~8

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 77

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2618 – paragraph ~~2 – point b~~1

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 78

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2618 – paragraph 2 – ~~point~~introductory cpart

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 79

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2618 – paragraph ~~5 –~~2 ~~introductory~~a ~~part~~(new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.~~

Amendment 80

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2618 – paragraph 53 – point bd a (new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.~~

Amendment 81

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2718 – paragraph 24

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

The skillsets required for essentiality checking (evaluators) and for FRAND determination (conciliators) are very different. For instance, evaluators require engineering and legal skills, whereas conciliators require economic and negotiation skills.

Amendment 82

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2918 – paragraph 15

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~More time is necessary to define the correct methodology.~~

Amendment 83

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 2918 – paragraph 6

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

There are many implementers and there will only ever be more. This provision leaves scope for implementers to collectively challenge very large numbers of registered SEPs, albeit at their own expense. The consequent burden on the EUIPO is likely to lead to delays, which may be used to justify delays in negotiating SEP licenses.

Amendment 84

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3218 – paragraph 38 a– ~~(new)~~introductory part

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~The positive case also needs to be provided for, as in the current AM.~~

Amendment 85

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3418 – paragraph 48 – point b a (new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~Please see comments to the corresponding recital.~~

Amendment 86

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3418 – paragraph 511

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~No longer necessary under the revised structure.~~

Amendment 87

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3719 – paragraph 21 – introductory part

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~The FRAND determination should run in parallel with any court proceedings.~~

Amendment 88

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3819 – paragraph 21 – point a

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

The additional requirement for commitment is a quasi-judicial device to justify a one-sided continuation. However, the commitment made has no legal force or meaning since it can be later withdrawn (per Art.46(1)(b)) and the reasoned determination may in any case be rejected (per Art.56(1)(c). The "commitment" aspect is unnecessary where a FRAND determination proceeds because both parties agree to participate.

Amendment 89

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3819 – paragraph ~~3 – introductory part~~2

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~The amendment provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.~~

Amendment 90

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3820 – paragraph ~~3 – point a~~1

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 91

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3822 – paragraph ~~3 – point b~~1

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 92

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3822 – paragraph ~~3 –~~4 ~~point~~a c(new)

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 93

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3824 – paragraph ~~4 – introductory part~~2

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~The amendment provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.~~

Amendment 94

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3824 – paragraph ~~4 – point~~2 a (new)

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 95

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3824 – paragraph ~~4 – point b~~3

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 96

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3825 – paragraph ~~4 – point c~~3

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 97

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3826 – paragraph 4 ~~– point d~~

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 98

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3826 – paragraph 5 – introductory part

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~No longer necessary under the revised structure.~~

Amendment 99

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3826 – paragraph 65 – point a

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.~~

Amendment 100

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 3927 – paragraph 1

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.~~

Amendment 101

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 4227 – paragraph 2

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.~~

Amendment 102

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 4428 – paragraph 12

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 103

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 4529 – paragraph 21

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.~~

Amendment 104

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 4529 – paragraph 32

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.~~

Amendment 105

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 4529 – paragraph 4

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~No longer necessary under the revised structure.~~

Amendment 106

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 4529 – paragraph 54 a (new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.~~

Amendment 107

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 4631 – paragraph ~~1 – point b~~2

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.~~

Amendment 108

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 4632 – paragraph 36

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.~~

Amendment 109

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 4733 – paragraph 21

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~It should be allowed to any party to make the request to terminate the procedure.~~

Amendment 110

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 5034 – paragraph 31 – introductory part

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.~~

Amendment 111

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 5434 – paragraph 34

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~In some circumstances this may not be possible, for instance where the confidential information comprises values in a confidential licensing agreement with a third party.~~

Amendment 112

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 5437 – paragraph ~~3 a (new)~~1

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 113

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 5438 – paragraph ~~3 b (new)~~2

~~Or. en~~

Amendment 114

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 5538 – paragraph 13 – introductory part

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.~~

Amendment 115

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 5538 – paragraph 23 – point a

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.~~

Amendment 116

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 5638 – paragraph 13 – ~~introductory~~point ~~part~~b

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~This amendment is aimed at adapting the article to the revised structure.~~

Amendment 117

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 5638 – paragraph 14 – ~~point d a~~introductory ~~(new)~~part

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~This amendment is aimed at adapting this Article to the revised structure.~~

Amendment 118

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 5638 – paragraph 4 – point a

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

Validity is not determined or assessed in the FRAND determination. Determination of validity and infringement procedures are prerequisite to any EU court determination of FRAND terms. It should therefore not be delayed by the FRAND determination procedure in this Regulation.

Amendment 119

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 5638 – paragraph 54 – point b

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~No longer necessary under the revised structure.~~

Amendment 120

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 6138 – paragraph 14 – point c

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

The amendments to Article 61 seek to outline a range of possible measures to implement Option 1 of the Commission's Impact Assessment (i.e. the“SME SEP Licensing Assistance Hub”). In particular, these amendments seek to focus the competence centre on one of the main issues that this Regulation is intended to prevent, namely the reduced use of standards by EU SMEs seeking to enter new IoT markets because of SEP licensing issues.

Amendment 121

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 6138 – paragraph 24 a (new)

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

Amendment 122

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 6138 – paragraph 35

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

Amendment 123

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 6138 – paragraph ~~3 a (new)~~6

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

Amendment 124

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 6139 – paragraph ~~3 b (new)~~1

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

These amendments flesh out the idea of an “SME SEP Licensing Assistance Hub” referenced in Option 1 of the Impact Assessment (page 30). In particular, the amendments seek to focus the competence centre on the potential future problem that the European Commission has stated that the Regulation is intended to prevent: reduced use of standards by EU SMEs seeking to enter new IoT markets because of SEP licensing issues. This focus includes conducting studies to enable the competence center to adequately advise SMEs about licensing costs in IoT markets and the annual collection of and reporting on information regarding SEP licensing activity involving SMEs.

Amendment 125

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

~~Article 61 a (new)~~

Article 42 – paragraph 2

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

The agreement with WIPO in paragraph (1) is adopted from Option 1 in the Impact Assessment (at page 30). Paragraph (2) gives SMEs an option to require patent holders to mediate with them under the auspices of WIPO before initiating any infringement action. This would give SMEs the benefit of an opportunity to reach an out-of-court settlement before expending large litigation costs similar to the effect of the original FRAND Determination provisions that would be deleted elsewhere. Paragraph(3) gives SMEs the opportunity to make a commitment to accept a FRAND license on a SEP Holder-by-SEP Holder basis. If an SME makes such a commitment, the SEP Holder would be prohibited from seeking an injunction since it could enforce the commitment under contract law in a national court. Paragraph (4) expressly provides that no adverse inference should be drawn against SMEs that do not avail themselves of the safe harbors.

Amendment 126

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 6344 – paragraph ~~2 – point a~~1

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~No longer necessary given the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.~~

Amendment 127

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 6345 – paragraph 2 ~~– point b~~

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~No longer necessary given the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.~~

Amendment 128

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 6345 – paragraph 3 ~~– point a~~

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with previous amendments.~~

Amendment 129

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 6345 – paragraph ~~3 – point b~~4

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with previous amendments.~~

Amendment 130

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 6445 – paragraph 25

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty.~~

Amendment 131

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

~~Article 66~~

Article 46 – paragraph 1 – point b

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~This article should be deleted in line with the proposal to change the scope of this Regulation (i.e. applying it only to new standards).~~

Amendment 132

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 6846 – paragraph 23

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~The integration is aimed at specifying that no implementing act should be adopted without an opinion of the committee.~~

Amendment 133

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 6947 – paragraph 12

~~Or. en~~

~~Justification~~

~~It is necessary to ensure legal clarity. The scope needs to be defined clearly in advance.~~

Amendment 134

Proposal for a ~~Regulation~~regulation

Article 7248 – paragraph 2

~~Regulation (EU) 1001/2017~~

Amendment 135

~~Article 72 ¬ paragraph~~

Proposal for a regulation

~~Or. en~~

Article 55 – paragraph 2

~~Justification~~

Amendment 136

~~More time is needed for setting up the structure envisaged by the Regulation.~~

Proposal for a regulation

Article 56 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Amendment 137

Proposal for a regulation

Article 56 – paragraph 4

Amendment 138

Proposal for a regulation

Article 60 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Amendment 139

Proposal for a regulation

Article 61 – paragraph 1

Amendment 140

Proposal for a regulation

Article 61 – paragraph 2

Amendment 141

Proposal for a regulation

Article 61 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Amendment 142

Proposal for a regulation

Article 61 – paragraph 3 b (new)

Amendment 143

Proposal for a regulation

Article 62 – paragraph 1

Amendment 144

Proposal for a regulation

Article 62 – paragraph 3

Amendment 145

Proposal for a regulation

Article 62 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Amendment 146

Proposal for a regulation

Article 63 – paragraph 3 – point b

Amendment 147

Proposal for a regulation

Article 66

Amendment 148

Proposal for a regulation

Article 67 – paragraph 2

Amendment 149

Proposal for a regulation

Article 67 – paragraph 3

Amendment 150

Proposal for a regulation

Article 67 – paragraph 6

Amendment 151

Proposal for a regulation

Article 70 – paragraph 1

Amendment 152

Proposal for a regulation

Article 70 – paragraph 2

ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR FOR THE OPINION HAS RECEIVED INPUT

The rapporteur has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the opinion:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE