Intellectual property rights enforcement in the EU‑Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement negotiations
30.3.2012
Question for written answer E-003483/2012
to the Commission
Rule 117
Peter Šťastný (PPE)
The enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) is vital to fostering investment in research activities and ensuring that innovation leads to the development of new products and services, while contributing to economic growth and job creation.
IPR enforcement is high on the agenda of the European Commission. This is also clear from Commissioner De Gucht’s Communication on ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs’, which emphasised the need to make sure that EU IPR are properly enforced.
In this context, the negotiation of a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the Government of Canada can play an important role in reaffirming the EU’s ambitions. It will set an important precedent with regard to the European Commission implementing its own policy orientations.
One of the considerable differences between the EU and Canada is the enforcement regime for patents in the life sciences sector. The lack of an effective right of appeal for innovators in Canada means that the different parties do not have the same fair recourse in this sector.
In Canada, the Patented Medicines Notice of Compliance Regulations create an unfair situation within the Canadian regulatory framework, which deprives innovators of basic procedural fairness and has already had detrimental effects on investments by EU companies. In the EU, the regime ensures that both sides stand on an equal legal footing.
- —Does the Commission agree that this has led to discrimination against companies operating in Canada, including EU companies?
- —Is the Commission addressing this asymmetry and discrimination in its negotiations with the Government of Canada?
- —What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that the CETA negotiations will lead to a satisfactory outcome so that both parties have equal access to an effective appeal mechanism in patent invalidity proceedings?
OJ C 130 E, 07/05/2013