Questions for MEPs who really want a single EU patent

While the regulation on the unitary patent is about to be voted by the European Parliament during its plenary session on December 11th 2012, its content is deceiving. It is crucial that Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are made aware of issues surrounding the unitary patent. We are proposing here a set of questions that MEPs should have in mind in order to vote in accordance with theirs convictions.

1. How can the Cyprus compromise be compliant with Article 118.1 TFEU while it does not provide for a full definition of the effects of the unitary patent?
2. How can the Cyprus compromise be compliant with Article 118.1 TFEU while it merely rely to harmonisation (which should be based on Art. 114 TFEU) for the unitary patent to provides uniform protection?
3. How can the Cyprus compromise be compliant with Article 118.1 TFEU while the uniform protection provided by unitary patents are not defined in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure of the European Union, but rather by national laws harmonised by an international agreement (the agreement on a Unified Patent Court, or UPC)?
4. How can the Cyprus compromise be compliant with Article 118.1 TFEU while any revision of measures defining the uniform protection provided by unitary patents are to be taken according to Art. 58d UPC, with one vote by Contracting Member State and a right of veto (Art. 58d (3)), without the EU legislator, and in particular the European Parliament, having any say?
5. Why in this regulation everything is made to make believe that the unitary patent is not a genuine EU patent?
6. Why trying to escape defining its effects: infringing acts and exceptions, with this Cyprus compromise?
7. Why not having examined in trilogue the explicit statement of the autonomous character of the unitary patent and its EU nature, while such things have been unanimously accepted by the Council in its conclusion under Swedish presidency in 2009?
8. In the end, do the proponents of the CY compromise and of the trilogue agreement really want a true EU single patent?