Although the London Agreement was concluded in London on 17 October 2000, it will not enter into force until 1 May 2008. As the Press Advisor of the European Patent Office notes: « Almost seven years later, on 9 October 2007, the second chamber of the French Parliament approved the ratification law by an overwhelming majority. Creation of an economic translation regime for European patents after their grant. This is the result of the work to reduce the costs of European patents launched at the Intergovernmental Conference in France in June 1999. In fact, it was the French who initially refused to ratify the original provisions of the London Agreement, but in the end, it was the French who revived and saved the issue of the translation process under the European Patent Convention (EPC). This agreement was signed by 10 countries, namely Denmark, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. To enter into force, instruments of ratification had to be deposited by at least eight countries, including at least France, Germany and the United Kingdom. So far, Monaco, Germany, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Denmark and France have deposited their instruments of ratification of the London Agreement, while Slovenia, Iceland, Latvia and Croatia have deposited their instruments of accession (accession will also be taken into account when the Agreement enters into force). Sweden ratified it on 29 April 2008[ 28] Over time, since its first signature in 1973, the European Patent Convention has spread to new contracting Member States. In some cases, the Länder have agreed on the intention to accede to the EPC at a later date, but so far they have agreed to comply with the provisions of the EPC as an extension State. The agreement is the result of a process launched at the Paris Conference of 24 and 25 June 1999, an intergovernmental conference of the Member States of the European Patent Organisation held in Paris at the invitation of the French Government. [25] The Conference adopted the mandate to establish two working groups to submit reports to the governments of the Contracting States on the reduction of the cost of European patents and the harmonization of patent litigation.

[25] The first working group eventually resulted in the London Agreement, while the second group led to the proposal for a European Agreement on Patent Litigation. More specifically, the first working group was tasked with drawing up an « Optional Protocol to the EPC » in which its signatory states undertake not to require the translation of the description of the European patent, provided that it is available in English. [or alternatively] if it is available in one of the official languages of the EPO designated by the respective signatory State. »; [25] The name « London Protocol » is sometimes used to refer to the London Agreement because the original mandate referred to a protocol rather than an agreement. [Notes 1] Of the 38 Contracting States to the European Patent Convention (as at 1 September 2013), 19, namely Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain and Turkey, have adopted provisions under Article 65(1) and (2) EPC. These states all require a translation of the complete patent specification. Countries that do not share a national language with one of the official languages of the EPO (English, French, German) must choose one of these three languages. If the patent is granted in that language, it is no longer necessary for the patent to be translated into a national language. Currently, all states have opted for English. In addition, these states may require that claims be translated into the respective national language, i.e. not in conformity with the EPO. The Convention did not change other language requirements that were in force before the grant of a European patent, such as .B.

the requirement that claims in a European patent application must be translated « into the two official languages of the European Patent Office which are not the language of the proceedings » after receipt of the communication referred to in Rule 71(3) EPC stating that the EPO intends to grant a European patent. Switzerland and Liechtenstein are generally considered as a single state for the purposes of validation under the bilateral agreement, which means that any patent granted in Switzerland is also considered valid in Liechtenstein. Contracting States to the EPC which have ratified or acceded to the Convention undertake to derogate, in whole or to a large extent, from the obligation to translate European patents. In accordance with Article 1(1), (2) and (3) of the London Agreement 2. Translation requirements in Contracting States The following States do not share an official language with the EPO and require that a translation of claims be filed in one of their official languages if the European patent has been granted in English or translated into English and filed under Article 65(1) EPC: Croatia**, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, the Netherlands and Sweden. With the exception of Croatia, the specification of the European patent may also be filed in those countries in the respective national language. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia only require a translation of claims into their respective official languages, regardless of the official language in which the EPO granted the patent. All EPC Contracting States have required, under Article 65(3) EPC, that the European patent be considered invalid from the outset in the event of non-compliance with the relevant national provisions. The circumstances in which such a loss of rights occurs shall be governed by the national law of the Contracting States concerned. In most Contracting States, the time limit for the submission of the translation is not extendable.

If an application is granted, it is necessary to file a translation of the claims into French and German (provided that the application is in English). That has not changed in the context of the London Agreement. After grant, most Member States of the European Patent Convention (EPC) required the filing of a translation of the entire specification into the national language of the State in order for the patent to take effect in that State. The preparation of these necessary translations could represent up to about 40% of the total cost of obtaining a European patent. The London Agreement, formally referred to as the Agreement on the Application of Article 65 of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents and sometimes referred to as the London Protocol, is an agreement on patent law concluded in London on 17 October 2000 with the aim of reducing the translation costs of European patents granted under the European Patent Convention (EPC). [1] The London Agreement is an optional agreement between the Member States of the European Patent Organisation[1] and did not change the other language requirements applicable to European patent applications before they were granted. States parties to the London Agreement which share an official language with the EPO, i.e. . . .