Activities of Jens ROHDE related to 2011/2176(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on jurisdictional system for patent disputes
Amendments (4)
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that, to ensure the high quality of court decisions, it will be essential for judges to have the necessary qualifications and receive continuous training; in this regard also highlights the importance of having technical judges both in the central courts and the local/regional divisions;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the establishment of a mediation and arbitration centre within the framework of the agreement, which is a further step towards reducing the costs of litigatio and stresses that one of its main aims must be to reduce and keep litigation costs down for the parties involved;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises the need for preferential treatment forat a simple and well- functioning Unified Patent Litigation system will be of particular benefit to SMEs and young innovative companies,; in the form of a differentiated and simplivites the Member States to examine the possibility for introducing differentiated fees for micro and small enterprises as defined cost and procedural structurein the Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC, whilst fully respecting equality before the law;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses the need for legal certainty and therefore believes that jurisdiction should fall to the local or regional division hosted by the Contracting Member State where the defendant is domiciled;