Michal David Sues Israel Postal Authority for Copyright Infringement

March 7, 2010

Michal David is an artist who creates household ornaments and knickknacks with a romantic look to them. Lots of cherubs, roses, ballet dancers pictures, etc. To get a feel for her style, see http://www.michaldavid.com/

 One of her ranges of goods is the hamsa, a Kabbalistic hand shaped symbol believed by some (more primitive, less rational) as being a good luck charm. Her hamsas are decorated in a pseudo Victorian, nostalgic style. Her goods seem to appeal to 22 year old girls, and make popular Bat Mitzva presents.

The Hamsa is probably the Hand of Fatima, the younger daughter of Mohamet and not a Jewish symbol at all. It includes an eye motif and apparently wards off the evil eye. (Ayin Horah – Eye of Horus – Ancient Egyptian god).

According to weekly newspaper, Mekor Rishon, the Israel Postal Authority have decided to use one of her Victorian Hamsa designs as a good news telegram. Blanks are available from the 740 odd Israel Post Offices and also from their website. Ms. David has sued for copyright infringement and unjust enrichment, claiming NIS 1,000,000 in damages. A spokesman for the Post Office admitted that charges had been filed and said that the Post Office will present their version in court.

At this stage, I am not sure if the Hamsa designs used by the Post Office are copies of Ms David’s or merely in her style. Presumably the damages eventually awarded will be linked to bad faith or otherwise and to the amount sold.

Leave a Comment » | Copyright, design, Intellectual Property, Israel Copyright | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Israel Patent Office Restricts Number of Extensions Allowed During Prosecution

March 4, 2010

In general, one has four months from the mailing date to respond to an Office Action. This period is extendable on payment of a fee. In Circular M.N. 82, Dr Meir Noam, the Israel Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks has announced that the four month deadline for responding to a single Office Action during prosecution of an Israel patent application can be extended by a maximum of six months and that the total number of extensions allowable during the prosecution of an application is 15 monthly extensions.

Notably, these extension caps do not relate to responding to the Notice Prior to Examination or to restriction orders claiming that there are more than invention. Nor are requests to suspend examinations included in this capping.

From receipt of the Notice Prior to Examination, things can still take about three years even if the Examiner were to respond by return. It is thus not clear how these moves, designed to make prosecution more efficient and to speed it up, will achieve these noble aims.

I am not sure that there is any inherent advantage is limiting how much time the applicant can procrastinate, at least not before the legislation of the proposed amendment to the Israel Patent Law to have 18 month publication. Postponing allowance merely postpones being able to enforce the patent. The number of cases where the Examiner takes more than 15 months of extensions without suspension cannot be very high. I would be more impressed if the patent office would publish a charter promising that the examiner would not sit on applications for more than 3 or 4 months without good cause…

Leave a Comment » | Israel, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, News | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Israel Patent Office to be closed from 29th March to 6th April for Pesach

March 3, 2010

The Israel Patent Office is to be closed from the 29th March 2010 to 6th April 2010 for Pesach (Passover).

As occurs a few times a century, there is agreement between the Western (Catholic and Anglican protestant) and the Eastern (Greek Orthodox) churches that Easter Sunday is 4th April 2010, so the Israel Patent Office is simultaneously closed for Easter. ( am not using the word ‘coincidentally’ - since there is a correlation between Easter and Pesach of course).

Ramadan finishes just before Rosh Hashana so the Israel Patent Office will apparently be open over Ramadan and Idel Fitteh.

Any deadlines occurring over the closure will be extended until 7 April 2010. There is a legal loophole that could be utilized by foreign entities missing a Paris Convention deadline for filing PCT applications to gain an extension. Please contact me if there is a need to do so, and we will explain the procedure.

Leave a Comment » | Intellectual Property, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent Office, Israel Related, Patents, PCT, WIPO | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Intellectual Property Culture – A Guide for Corporate IP Managers

March 2, 2010

 

Intellectual Property Culture by Eric M. Dobrusin and Ronald A. Krasnow, is a kind of handbook for actual and aspiring in-house IP managers. Although it does not assume knowledge of IP, and defines trade secrets, patents, and other basic concepts, the book is not merely for new-comers, but includes much that licensed patent agents or patent attorneys will find interesting, particularly those that switch from working for service providing law firms to becoming in-house counsel.

Rather than to teach how to draft patents, the book teaches how to create an IP culture for a corporation. Infringement and competitors IP is discussed before how to plan a patent portfolio. Trade secrets and confidentiality are discussed before patents. 

There are some very useful tips regarding attorney-client privilege in the US. In some cases, directors are advised to create personal privilege by consulting with IP Lawyers directly instead of as representatives of the firm.

Outside Counsel will be ambivalent about the book. On the one hand, there is a frank and revealing description of how many IP law firms operate, and a non-polemic but nevertheless implied criticism  of common leveraging practices where the less experienced personnel do the billable work. On the other hand, in a table of avoidable causes of large legal bills is “trying to do the job of IP counsel to save a few bucks.”

There is a particularly good chapter on claim reconstruction that includes a table of patent terms that companies have spent millions in litigation based on what words like ‘and’, ‘about’, ‘composition’ and ’one’ mean.  

I am unaware of any other book that is directed at the corporate niche in this mannerand suspect that the conscientious CTO, internal legal counsel, CEO or Vice President responsible for IP matters will read the book systematically and then refer to it regularly. 

Intellectual Property Culture by Eric M. Dobrusin and Ronald A. Krasnow, Oxford University Press, 2008. 382 pages, including some useful appendices, boiler-plate contracts, NDAs, etc.

3 Comments | book review, Patents, US | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Wyeth Accuses Teva of Widening Grounds of Opposition, but Israel Patent Office Adjudicator, Refuses to Dismiss Claims in Interim Ruling

March 2, 2010

Teva are opposing Wyeth’s Patent Application Number 151450, which is a divisional application of 120382  “Extended Release Formulation Of Venlafaxine Hydrochloride”.

When Teva submitted 60 odd publications, Wyeth accused them of widening the basis of their opposition, claiming that the information should have been submitted in the Statement of Case. Additionally, they claim an interesting idea of Parent Application Estoppel, claiming that by not opposing the parent application, the opposer is estoppeled from opposing the divisional application, and requested the relevant clauses to be struck from the record.

Teva claim that the sixty publications submitted were indicative of the state of the art and were not substantive new grounds for opposition. Furthermore, Teva point out that Dexel have submitted these publications in parallel opposition proceedings. As to the Estoppel argument, Teva suggested that this should be discussed on its merits in the opposition proceedings.

Shoshani Caspi has refrained to comment on the issues raised and is allowing the new publications to be cited. She has, however,  required Teva to state what each publication contributes to establishing the State of the Art.

I think Shoshani Caspi’s position is reasonable. I am, however, at a loss as to what Wyeth, represented by Richard Luthi, have to gain by having prior art excluded from an opposition proceedings on procedural grounds. If  a patent were to issue due to prior art that negates novelty or inventive step not being considered on a technicality, presumably the patent would be unenforceable as it would not hold up in court.

Leave a Comment » | Intellectual Property, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Opinion, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology, Teva | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Israel Supreme Court Refuses Clothes Pins Appeal

March 2, 2010

A Mr Zion Dadon had the bright idea of threading rings with attached clothes pins (English – clothes pegs) onto clothes lines, thereby preventing the problem of the pegs falling to the ground.

Fascinatingly, back in 1994, Rafael, Israel’s leading armaments manufacturer, was contracted to manufacture these revolutionary clothes pins, and manufactured 433,255 from polypropylene. It appears that the choice of material was left to the manufacturers, with the contract specifying high quality material. Polyproplylene was not up to the job, and Dadon requested manufacturing from nylon instead.     

On the basis of poor choice of material, Dadon sued Rafael for Breach of Contract. The case was thrown out in September 1996. Now, some 3 1/2 years later, the Supreme Court has refused to reopen the case, claiming that the District Court had weighed up the evidence and reached a reasonable decision.  the appeal was dismissed and costs of NIS 2500 were awarded against the appelant.

I have decided to blog the case as it is rare that the Israel Supreme Court considers patent cases, and even rarer where such cases are not pharmaceutical related. That Rafael are making clothes pins is also quite interesting.

As a Materials Scientist, I also have an interest in the choice of materials for various applications. In trying to evaluate the reasonableness of manufacturing clothes pins from polypropylene, I note that US 4,876,771 to Itzhak Givati titled “Plastic clip particularly useful as a clothes pin” which was filed in 1988, suggests polypropylene as an appropriate plastic.

I am still not sure what Rafael’s interest in this is. I have not found any reference to clothes pins being used in weapon systems, although they apparently widely used as nipple clamps in BDSM applications.

Appeal 1668/07 Zion Dadon against Rafael Weapons Development LTD.

Leave a Comment » | Israel Court Ruling | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

March 2, 2010

Watson Laborarories Requests Declaratory Judgement that Teva’s Patent For Seasonique is Invalid Watson Laboratories Inc. has filed a declaratory judgment suit against Teva Women’s Health Inc., seeking a ruling that its bid to make a generic version of oral contraceptive Seasonique does not infringe a separate patent covering a lower dosage of the drug. Watson, the generics maker, filed its complaint Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, disputing the validity of a “nearly identical” patent assigned to the Teva unit. THE CASE: Watson Laboratories, Inc. vs Teva Women’s Health, Inc. 3:10-cv-00115; filed February 25, 2010 in the District Court of Nevada

Leave a Comment » | Intellectual Property, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Patents, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology, Teva | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers