Dear Mr B.,
On 20 January 1999 you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman concerning the "Euro Converter" made available to the public on the Website of the European Commission. You considered that this converter was protected as a utility model patented by you on 26 July 1998.
On 2 March 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The European Commission sent its opinion on 3 June 1999 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. I did not receive any observations from you.
I am now writing to you to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant together with his partner, developed a computer programme creating a calculator (hereinafter EuroCalc) which had specific features to easily convert a currency into Euro. In 1997 EuroCalc was proposed to the European Commission together with an offer for a distribution licence. By the end of 1998 a similar offer was made to the European Commission's Representation in Germany. In both cases the Commission appeared to be interested by the product. However, at a later stage, the Commission rejected the offers and informed the complainant that it would develop its own product.
In 1999 the Commission made its Euro Converter publicly available on the Internet. The complainant considered that this infringed his rights on the computer programme he created and patented as a utility model. Furthermore, potential clients would refrain from buying his software, given that it was available on the Internet for free.
The complainant could reach no agreement with the Commission and therefore lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman. He claimed that the Commission, by making a free Euro-Converter publicly available on the Internet, was infringing his rights on a patented calculator he developed. He therefore sought the removal of the Euro-Converter from the Internet.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
The opinion of the European Commission on the complaint was in summary the following:
At the end of 1998 the Commission developed a Euro calculator (hereafter Euro-Converter) which was placed on the internet and made publicly available on 1 January 1999.
The Euro-Converter does not infringe the protection that was granted for the complainant's utility model. Except the fact that they both are converters with two displays, their features are different. Furthermore, the Euro-Converter, unlike EuroCalc, is not designed to carry out general calculations, but is strictly limited to conversions.
The general feature of both calculators is the conversion. As conversion programmes have existed for a considerable amount of time, the complainant cannot claim the protection of this function. The Commission considers that under German law (applicable in the case of the complainant's patent) EuroCalc does not fulfil the requirements of a utility model. It therefore announced its intention to apply to the German Federal Patent Office to obtain that the utility model registered by the complainant is expunged from the list of protected utility models.
The complainant's observations
The complainant did not hand in any observations.

FURTHER INQUIRIES

On 11 May 2000, the German Federal Patent Office informed the Ombudsman that the European Commission had indeed asked for the utility model registered by the complainant to be expunged from the list of protected utility models. The decision is to be taken by the end of the year 2000.

THE DECISION

1 Infringement of the complainant's rights on a patent
1.1 The complainant claims that the Commission, by making a free Euro-Converter publicly available on the Internet, was infringing rights on a patented calculator he developed. He therefore requested the Commission to remove the free Euro-Converter from the Internet. The Commission rejected the complainant's allegation. It stressed that the products were different and that under German law the protection of the key feature, i.e. the conversion function, should not be granted to the complainant.
1.2 The Ombudsman considers that the Commission's explanations for considering that the Euro-Converter and EuroCalc are different are reasonable. Therefore the Commission did not appear to infringe the complainant's rights by making the Euro-Converter publicly available on the Internet appear to be reasonable. The Ombudsman's inquiry has therefore revealed no instance of maladministration.
2 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN