Ruling Real Legal Expenses Rather than Rough Estimate

November 30, 2010

Fin. Ing. S.R.L. and “Reporter” Spolka z organiczona odpiowiedzialnoscia have a long running battle regarding various trademarks for “Reporter”.

Reporter Spolka filed opposition proceeding against Fin. Ing.’s mark number 207810, but eventually withdrew. The applicant filed for costs, producing receipts that showed that legal fees of NIS 20,197 were incurred for 22 hours work over eight months, and including 5 series of papers being filed.

The Deputy Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks acknowledged that the invoices submitted were supported by an affidavit, but held that they were not sufficiently detailed. Consequently, he preferred to rule sums of NIS 7,500, in accordance with general patent office practice and on assessing the good faith or lack of it displayed by the parties, how far the case had advanced, and similar issues.

Case: Opposition to TM 207810 for Reporter, to Fin. Ing. S.R.I. Ruling on costs


Afrin and Ephrine, confusingly similar or not?

November 30, 2010

Schering Plough filed a trademark application “Afrin” for decongestants, nose drops, nose moisturizer, nasal sprays and the like. Because there are eye-drops on the market that are called “Ephrine”, manufactured by Fischer Pharmaceuticals, that are spelled in Hebrew in a way that could be read the either way, the Israel Trademark Office refused the mark. On appeal, the agent for the applicant argued that eye drops and nose drops are very different, only one needs a prescription, one features the name in Hebrew and English and the other in English only. 

Since the two products are sold in pharmacies and are for similar products in the same class, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks ruled that there is a likelihood of confusion, particularly as neither product is for chronic use, but rather for treating occasional ailments, and so consumers could easily make a mistake. Due to the fact that the preparations are used for medical purposes, mistakes of this nature could have serious repercussions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The case: TM 216996 to Schering Plough


Amending Claims after an Opposition is filed in Israel

November 29, 2010

Teva Pharmaceuticals filed an Opposition proceeding to Schwartz’ Pharma’s patent number 149567 titled “Stable salts of novel derivatives of 3-3 diphenylpropylamines”. In response, Schwartz cancelled a dependent claim and filed a new dependent claim.

During opposition proceedings the applicant is allowed to delete claims and to narrow the scope of the claim set, but is filing a new dependent claim permissible narrowing, is it prohibited?

This question is addressed by the Adjudicator of Intellectual Property, Ms Shoshani Caspi, in an interim decision.

Background

During patent examination in Israel, the applicant has a lot of leeway in amending the claims. Providing the amendments are fairly supported by the specification, the applicant can widen the claim set and can change their focus. Prior to publication for opposition purposes, divisional applications may be filed for inventive material supported by the specification but not otherwise claimed.

During the opposition period, when, after allowance, the patent publishes and, for three months, third parties may file oppositions, in response to an opposition, the applicant may narrow the scope of the claimed invention. 

According to section 65, after issuance, the applicant may file amendments to clarify or to correct a mistake may be made, or the claims may be narrowed. Section 66 requires the Commissioner to ascertain that the amendment does not add new material not supported by the specification and does not widen the scope of protection.

The applicant narrowed claims 1-5, 8-11 and 16, by specifying the preparation in more detail, narrowed claims 1,3 8 and 10 by defining a group R as being specifically isopropyl,  and deleted claim 17. These changes are certainly narrowing individual claims, or deleting them and were allowed.

The applicant also wished to delete allowed claim 6 and file a new claim 6 claiming the salts of the preparations of the independent claim.

The question addressed by Shoshani Caspi is whether the new claim 6, that adds a limiting feature to independent claim 1 is considered permissible as it does not widen the scope of protection of the patent, but merely adds a limitation to that claimed in the main claim, or is it considered inadmissible as it is not clearly a restriction to the scope of any claim – since claim 1 is still on record, and this is a dependent claim?

Essentially the issue is whether adding additional claims that could be opposed on their merits and could create new fallback positions, but don’t necessarily widen the scope of protection requested, can be filed during opposition proceedings, or whether the only amendments allowed are those designed to narrow the argument and are to be allowed if they are giving up of monopoly rights without a fight.

Judicial review Officer Shoshani Caspi framed the question as to whether Sections 65 an 66 should be considered together, or whether the applicant could file an amendment claiming that the scope of the claim set was not widened and the Commissioner should then check that this is the case.

The opposer’s position was that stepwise analysis of section 65 followed by section 66 was required, and each amendment should be classified as a correction, clarification or narrowing of a specific claim, whereas the applicant considered this overly formalistic and the question to be addressed was whether the scope of the claim-set was widened – which would not be allowed.

Despite noting precedents for such amendments, Shoshani Caspi ruled that the amendment was inadmissible and that henceforth amendments during oppositions should clearly fall into one or other category and any narrowing of the claim set should be clearly narrowing the scope of a specific claim.

The allowed amendments were restricting the range of species listed in Markush type claims. The Claim 6 amendment was not allowed.  Costs of NIS 8000 were awarded to Teva.


Fast Israel Patent Office Search Reports Available for Priority Applications

November 28, 2010

 

After an initial classification on filing, to assign to a particular technology group, the Israel Patent Office examines applications in each group in turn. Unlike some other jurisdictions, there is no need to request examination.

It has always been possible to jump the queue by requesting accelerated examination and submitting an affidavit testifying to due cause. Typical reasons for requesting accelerated examination include competitors already using the technology.

In a Notice published on 28 November 2010 it has been announced that as of 1 January 2010, the applicants of patent applications first filed in Israel can request accelerated examination based on an intention to file abroad under the Paris Convention. A search report will issue within 3 months.

This means that first filers in Israel can get a search report very quickly and use it as a basis for deciding whether or not to file abroad. Furthermore, on the basis thereof, the applicants can make amendments to the specification and / or claims before filing abroad. Finally, since Israel is to become an International Search Authority, the applicants of a PCT application claiming priority from the Israel application can request that the International Search Report and Written Opinion take the Israel Search findings into account. 

Israel examiners have access to the same search engines that their counterparts at the EPO use. Furthermore, Israel examiners tend to have additional languages in addition to Hebrew and English, particularly other European languages, so the quality of the search is likely to be high.  

This, coupled with the relatively low cost of filing in Israel, the fact that the application may be filed in English, and that currently there is no automatic publication, means that first filing in Israel makes strategic sense.


Trademark Request for “Quality Management” Rejected as Being Laudatory

November 28, 2010

Kenshoo LTD provide Internet search optimization services and filed two Israel trademark applications, Numbers 211981 and 211982 for the word marks “Quality Management” in classes 35 (advertising) and 41 (internet services) respectively.

The trademark examiner rejected the marks as being merely laudatory, and the Commissioner of Patents has rejected an appeal, ruling that the marks lack inherent distinctive characteristics, and simply implies that the applicant considers their services of a high quality but does not indicate the source fo the service to the consumer.


The hunt for a New Israel Commissioner of Patents is on!

November 28, 2010

The rumours that the term of office of the current Israel Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Dr Meir Noam, is coming to an end appears to be well founded.

Friday’s papers included advertisements for the position.

Suitably qualified candidates are invited to submit their CVs to the Ministry of Justice.


Court finds Copyright in Exam Questions and fines the Institute of Certified Public Accountants in Israel

November 21, 2010

 

Datafax LTD accused the Institute of Certified Public Accountants in Israel (ICPAI) of copying 10 questions from their website and incorporating them in exam papers for testing trainees. Datafax sued for NIS 200,000 (almost $55,000) in damages. 

The plaintiff manages an Internet site that provides information on employment law, workers rights, salaries, etc. They also publish a weekly newsletter.

The website is for subscribers only and permits fair personal, non commercial use.

The ICPAI is a voluntary body of licensed accountants that represents over 11,000 certified public accountants. Among their activities they provide regular professional training.

The ICPAI decided to run a training course and engaged an external adviser to prepare it.. The adviser subcontracted a tax consultant to draft questions. The tax consultant provided questions taken from nine different editions of Datafax’ weekly newsletters. The exam papers bore the copyright symbol.

When sued by Datafax for statutory damages of NIS 10,000-20,000 per copied question, the ICPAI presented a number of defenses including:

  • Datafax did not prove the existence of the weekly publications that the alleged infringement copied.
  • Exam questions are not literary works that are suitable candidates for copyright protection.
  • The questions were not original or creative.
  • The ICPAI was unaware of the infringement.
  • The questions are covered by the fair use exception.
  • Datafax’  non commercial use exception covered the ICPAI’s activities.
  • Datafax wase guilty of inequitable behavior in asserting their copyrights.
  • The ICPAI was not aware who copied from whom and suggested that Datafax copied from the person they hired to write the questions.
  • Even if there was infringement, it should be considered as only one act.

Judge Chagai Brenner, who ruled on the case, considered that Datafax provided sufficient evidence that the questions appeared in their publication at a date prior to the exam, and that the tax consultant did not provide any evidence that he had created the questions himself at an earlier date.

The fact that the ICPAI attached a copyright symbol to the exam papers estoppeled it from claiming that copyright law did not apply.

As to the question of the number of infringements, Judge Brenner ruled that the single exam paper consisting of 10 questions taken from different editions of the same journal should be considered as one act of infringement. However, due to the fact that the questions were collected from different editions and that the ICPAI fought intensely rather than admitting their guilt, the infringement should be considered a serious one. Consequently, the Judge awarded the maximum statutory award of NIS 20,000 for copyright infringement, a further NIS 20,000 for ignoring the moral right of the company to be credited as the source of the questions, NIS 1,500 legal costs and NIS 20,000 + VAT lawyers’ fees.

T.A. 21685-07 Datafax LTD vs. the Institute of Certified Public Accountants in Israel


Israel Judge Issues Injunction Against Eilat Hotel Calling Itself a Sport Hotel

November 17, 2010

Isrotel's Sports Hotel

Beer Sheva Judge Shlomo Friedlander has issued a temporary injunction against the hotel Lev Eilat, preventing it from referring to itself as “malon sport” a sport hotel. Isrotel who operates the Sport Club Hotel in Eilat claimed that they have a well-known trademark for the name. If the defendent continues to use the mark they will incur a fine of NIS 1000 a day. The main charges for damages of NIS 250,000 has yet to be heard.

The mark is apparently not registered. It also seems somewhat descriptive, at least to this commentator.

There are a number of sprorts hotels around the world.

We think this decision somewhat less convincing than a Jerusalem ruling concerning a new hotel calling itself the Jerusalem Colony Hotel, see American Colony Hotel Prevents Competitor’s Using Name Colony

Although they will continue fighting, the defendants have agreed to stop using the term sports hotel in the interim. I would have counseled appealing the interim judgement.


Israel patent for slabs with decorative inserts successfully opposed as lacking novelty

November 17, 2010

Israel Patent Application Number IL 158016 to Pnina Maron titled “Ornamental slab and method for producing same” relates to slabs having decorative inserts, possible illuminated, formed by making a hollow for the decorative insert by means of an industrial technique such as sand blasting, high pressure water jets, laser cutting, and various other techniques, excluding hammer and chisel.

Shuki Asher opposed the granted application pointing out that the technology was known prior to the application date and that such slabs were available from the applicant prior to filing.

There was also apparently a NIS 5 discrepancy between a payment made and an official fee, presumably due to one of the six monthly recalculations of official fees which are index linked and updated twice yearly. The Commissioner refused to allow this minor debt to the Ministry of Justice to prevent a substantive ruling based on the issues. 

The applicant dismissed her attorneys after filing their response to the opposition, and represented herself, something that is brave but generally considered foolhardy. In cross-examination by opposer’s counsel, former Commissioner of Patents, Moshe Goldberg, the applicant was inconsistent in her statements and more or less admitted that the product was available before filing, although argued that the method of manufacture was not known.

Based on a host of citations, the commissioner of Patents ruled that although processes for mass production could be patented, there was nothing inventive in the application as filed. Despite some commercial successes, the patent was voided. Opponent was awarded NIS 8000 in costs.

   


Book Review: Patents for Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, and Biotechnology, fundamentals of Global Law, Practice and Strategy

November 17, 2010

Written by senior IP counsel at Novartis, Philip Grubb and Peter Thomsen, both also lecturers in academia, this book is a well-written authoritative overview of patent protection for pharmaceuticals, chemistry and genetics that is a “must read” for practitioners and industrialists in this area.

Whilst it is clear that the authors are biased towards the drug development industry, the genetic viewpoint is covered as well and there is an attempt to be fair. The authors acknowledge that most genetic challenges are aimed at secondary patents that attempt to prolong the period of protection and there is even an admission that sometimes patent applications are filed where it is difficult to argue inventive step or even novelty, and the pejorative term evergreening is used to condemn such activities that bring the drug development industry into disrepute.

The book covers the legislative development and main case-law, comparing and contrasting between the practice in the UK, US, Japan and Continental Europe, particularly Germany and the Netherlands. The book is very strong on historical development of the patent system, both for the main regimes, and their former colonies. Thus, where the problems of protection in the developing world is discussed, particularly Latin America, it is pointed out that Spain and Portugal lacked protection for pharmaceuticals until joining the EEC in 1980, which does put things into perspective.

The book has five parts.

Part 1 provides an introduction and background to the Modern Patent System, discussing the nature and origins of patent rights and follows the early history and the historic development over two centuries in the UK and the USA. The evolution of the law in other industrial countries is covered, albeit less thoroughly, and the state of affairs in developing countries is discussed as well. Trends towards harmonization of patent law are discussed at length, particularly the state of affairs in Europe and TRIPS, and criticisms of TRIPS are related to.

In part 2, substantive patent law and procedure is reviewed. The range of patentable inventions is discussed, followed by an overview of what should be filed, when and where. This leads into a discussion of filing abroad, the Paris Convention, European patent applications and the PCT system, and follows with a discussion of petty patents. The examination procedure, allowance, oppositions and maintenance are discussed, followed by the requirement to work the patent and forced licenses. This naturally leads into chapters covering enforcement and invalidity and post grant amendments. Although this section is not specific to the chemical, pharma and biotech industries, it is written from this angle and an overview of patent term extensions and supplementary certificates is included.

One of the strongest sections is Part 3, which discusses the patentability of inventions in specific technical fields. The chapter on chemical inventions includes selection inventions and disclaimers, protecting compounds of unknown structure and synthesis and new uses. Pharmaceutical inventions are covered broadly, including secondary pharmaceutical uses. Supplementary Protection Certificates are discussed together with other exclusivity periods. The chapter on biotechnical inventions managed to concisely various developments including recombinant DNA and Monoclonal Antibodies. The chapter was a well written introduction to the science. The question of patenting life, and transgenic animals and plants is covered, and the morality aspects were covered, albeit largely dismissively. Surprisingly, there was a chapter on software and business methods. This was justified as these fields are often of importance to chemistry and life science players, and case law in one controversial field, may have a knock on effect elsewhere.

The fourth section covers patenting in practice. The difference between US patent agents and patent attorneys is explained, as are licensing requirements in Europe. The expected formal education, general perspectives and areas of competence of newly qualified practitioners in different jurisdictions are compared and contrasted. The application itself is systematically discussed, in terms of the purpose and scope of the background, sufficiency of disclosure, length of text, purpose of claims and the various forms. In addition to Markush, Jephson and Swiss type claims, ‘free beer’ claims – i.e. claiming a desirable result without adequate disclosure and ‘pickled onion’ claims, i.e. the danger of being overly broad in claim drafting, and including well established prior art, were also discussed.

The fifth section covers commercial exploitation. The issue of inventorship is discussed, together with the rights of the inventor in various jurisdictions. The various patenting strategies of different players, such as start-ups, established companies, individual inventors, universities and patent trolls is compared, and the use of patents by pharmaceutical companies is contrasted with the use by microelectronic industries. Infringement and licensing are covered from the perspectives of the patentee and the user, and the various considerations concerning licenses, contracts and agreements between different types of entities is discussed in a manner that makes it clear that the authors have considerable practical experience. The final chapter looks at competition law in Europe and the US, and here the authors are refreshingly sarcastic about probes and position papers written by well-meaning, but ignorant quangos and government committees. A useful glossary and index are also included.

Despite being impressed by and generally enjoying the volume which is well written and well-organized, I do have a number of criticisms regarding personal opinions of the authors regarding preferred practice:

  1.  The authors suggest formulating a policy of where to file, and adopting this as company policy, to be revisited only if the nature of the invention indicates consideration of different markets.
  2. The authors also advocate developing and managing IP in-house IP, pointing out that the general trend to outsource peripheral activities should not be extended to IP which, unlike IT support, etc., is of central importance to the health and business of the company. As a handbook written by experts, I would expect IP managers to look for and be influenced by such practical advice.

The problem is that for pharmaceuticals, as with other technologies, the IP strategy is built on the dual considerations of protecting potential markets and thwarting competitors. The importance and capabilities of difference countries varies over time in accordance with their economic development and with political change, both international treaties and changes of internal government. It is difficult enough to make decisions that will have an effect in several years time, with continuous monitoring of the situation and rethinking strategy. Deciding that historic practice should become policy that does not generally require revisiting is indeed a way to avoid protracted meetings, but it makes it increasingly likely that expensive patent portfolios will not provide adequate protection.

To this reviewer, a glaring lacuna is that the IP regime in Israel is ignored. Indeed, the only Israel link, was in the discussion on the doctrine of equivalents, where the Epilady case was discussed, and the workings of the German and UK courts was contrasted. Israel is a relatively small market of only some 7 million people, but Israel industry includes some major players. Teva is the world’s most successful generic drug manufacture and currently the fourth largest pharmaceutical group. Makhteshim is the largest generic specialist chemical manufacturer. Compugen has developed a computer gene analysis platform and is leading player is gene discovery and classification. In the past 5 years there have been many changes and the Israel patent office is one of a handful authorized to provide International Search Reports and written opinions for PCT applications. There are however, no specialist IP courts. Whether after due consideration, a chemistry, genetic or pharma company decides to file and prosecute patents in Israel or decides not to, this should be a decision. Israel is too important to be ignored. Although a single volume work cannot be comprehensive, I suspect that other jurisdictions are not given sufficient discussion either.

List price $175 – but already available for less on the Internet. Well worth the money.

Patents for Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, and Biotechnology, fundamentals of Global Law, Practice and Strategy, fifth edition, by Philip Grubb and Peter Thomsen, ISBN 978-0-19-957523-7 Oxford University Press 2010, 537 pages in hardback.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers