I’ve decided to add an Israel IP events page to this blog. Providing the events are free to the public, or that I get a complimentary place as Israel’s leading IP blogger-journalist, will post forthcoming events.
I will try to blog those events I attend, or to have some other attendee provide a guest post.
Leave a Comment » | 
Israel IP | 
Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
The Tel Aviv District Court has upheld a decision by the Israel Patent Office to refuse Eveready’s Trademark Application Number TM 204, 832 for shaving creams and 204,499 for razors and shavers for the slogan “Free your skin”.
However, the court has over-turned the assumption that slogans are always descriptive or laudatory and therefore invariably non-registerable, ruling that they should be examined like any other mark. Consequently, the current Commissioner or Patents and Trademarks Adv. Assa Kling has cancelled Patent Office Circular MN 29 that held that slogans cannot be registered.
BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2010, then Deputy Commissioner Noah Shalev Shmulovits upheld a decision of the trademark examiner, that Israel Trademark Number was invalid for registration.
Shmulovits based his decision on Israel Patent Office Circular Number M.N. 29 in which then Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Dr Meir Noam ruled that slogans could generally not be registered.
Since then, there have been a number of exceptions. See for example party-like-a-rockstar, im-lovin-it, shufersal, its-all-for-you, bleach-free and diamond in your pocket for specific rulings.
Eveready appealed the decision to the courts. In a well-reasoned ruling, Judge Yitzhak Anber has ruled that slogans may often be laudatory or descriptive, but should be considered as simply multi-word marks and judged on their merits.
21488-05/11 Eveready vs. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Tel Aviv District Court by Judge Yitzhak Anber, 8 December 2011.
Leave a Comment » | Israel, Israel Court Ruling, Israel IP, Israel Patent Agency, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Related, trademarks | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
The long awaited guidelines regarding the patentability of software inventions in Israel have finally been published by the Israel Patent Authority.
In brief, it appears that the term ‘industrial application’ as required by section 3 of the Israel Patent Law 1967 may be fulfilled by patents in any field of technology.
Helpfully, the relevant guidelines for the Examiner are appended to the circular, together with a number of specific examples from real patent applications, a verdict regarding whether the claimed invention is patentable subject matter and a brief explanation.
For reference purposes, I am reproducing the examples below:
GB 2391348
A data processing apparatus, comprising:
a processor;
a compiler for compiling application code to generate instructions for execution by the processor;
a non-invasive trace unit coupled to the processor for generating, from input signals received from the processor, trace signals indicative of the instructions being executed by the processor;
the compiler being arranged to control the compilation of the application code dependent on the trace signals.
This is considered patentable.
GB 2407655
A method of operating a computing device having an operating system and a dynamic link library containing a plurality of functions accessible by an executable program, each function in the dynamic link library being associated with an ordinal number, the method comprising:
Providing the dynamic link library as a first part and an extension part each containing one or more of the plurality of functions;
Causing the executable program to link to functions in the first part directly by means of the associated ordinal numbers;
and Causing the executable program to link to functions in the extension part indirectly via a further library containing additional functions.
This is also considered patentable.
WO2007002296
A method for automatically calculating a discount for a customer offered by a merchant through a reservation system, comprising:
accessing at least one reservation file relating to a reservation;
accessing transaction data relating to at least one payment card transaction;
comparing one or more elements of the transaction data against one or more elements of the reservation file to determine a match;
and electronically calculating the discount based on[e or more] one or more elements of the transaction data and one or more elements of the reservation file.
This is considered non-patentable as although computer implemented, the real world effect is a business method which is not considered as having a technological effect.
EP 1301912
A method of operating a transaction processing system enabling users to authorize transactions, said system comprising a central transaction processing system (19) having at least a first data communications interface and a second data communications interface, comprising the following steps carried out by said central transaction processing system (19):
receiving transaction data from an offering party, relating to a specific transaction to be authorized by a user, and receiving a first transaction reference (TRN) relating to and uniquely identifying said specific transaction, via a first data communication path (16), at said first data communications interface;
generating a second transaction reference (TRR) which is different to the first transaction reference (TRN) and which uniquely identifies the transaction within the central transaction processing system (19);
sending said second transaction reference (TRR) to the offering party; after receiving said transaction data, conducting communications over a second data communication path (22), different to said first data communication path, with said user over said second data communications interface;
using said second path, conducting a secure access procedure in which authentication data is received and said authentication data is verified;
using said second path, receiving said first transaction reference (TRN) relating to and uniquely identifying said specific transaction from said user, said transaction reference not being previously transmitted to said user in said second communication path (22);
using said second path, receiving confirmation from said user; and
in response to said confirmation, transmitting an authorization signal to authorize said transaction, said authorization signal including said second transaction reference (TRR), wherein said second transaction reference (TRR) is not known to said user.
Despite being applied to business applications, there is a technological effect of improved data security so the claimed invention is patentable.
GB 2171877
A method of making a telephone call from any available telephone, comprising: obtaining a special code by making a prepayment;
inserting the prepayment in a memory in a special exchange and being allocated to the special code in the memory for use in verifying a calling party call;
dialing the special exchange when a telephone call connection is desired;
inputting the special code for verification; inputting the number of called party;
verifying at the special exchange by checking the special code and comparing the prepayment less any deductions for previous calls in the memory with the minimum cost of a call to the called party station;
connecting the called and calling parties’ stations in response to said verification; monitoring the remaining prepayment less deductions for the running cost of the call;
and disconnecting the call when the remaining prepayment has been spent by the running cost of the call.
Despite being a business method, by virtue of the ‘special exchange’, there is a redeeming device and the invention is patentable.
GB 2418281
A method of creating a document having a displayable area on which information is placed, the method comprising:
a. providing a plurality of content-items which contain information that it is possible to display on the displayable area;
b. dividing the displayable area into a set of subareas each capable of receiving one or more of the content-items;
c. generating at least one set of proposed arrangements in which the content items have been arranged within the set of sub-areas;
d. selecting at least one of the proposed arrangements, according to predetermine criteria, as the layout of the content-items within the sub-areas of the displayable area to create the document; and
e. causing a printing means to print the created document.
This is considered simply automation of manual type-setting and is not considered as patentable.
US 2007033615
A method for transferring programs to a secondary storage device using an interactive television program guide implemented on user television equipment, to cause a first display: in a display screen of at least one program listing related to at least one program;
using the interactive television program guide to enable a user to select a program listing from at least one displayed program listing;
using the interactive television program guide to cause the program related to the selected program listing to be recorded on a digital storage device;
using the interactive television program guide to cause a second display in the display screen that includes at least one recorded program listing for at least one program recorded on the digital storage device, wherein at least one recorded program listing includes a recorded program listing for the program recorded on the digital storage device;
using the interactive television program guide to enable the user to select the recorded program listing to transfer the recorded program from the digital storage device to a secondary storage device; and
using the interactive television program guide to transfer the recorded program from the digital storage device to the secondary storage device.
This is considered as having a real world effect and is therefore patentable.
A method of monitoring, diagnosing and treating medical conditions of a plurality of remotely located patients using a central data processing system configured to communicate with and receive data from a plurality of respective patient monitoring systems, wherein each patient monitoring system is capable of receiving and storing patient data, the method comprising the steps of:
obtaining patient data from a plurality of patient monitoring systems at the central data processing system;
analyzing the obtained patient data from each respective patient monitoring system at the central data processing system to identify medical conditions of each respective patient;
displaying identified patient medical conditions for each respective patient in selectable, prioritized order according to medical severity; and
in response to selecting an identified medical condition for a respective patient, displaying treatment options for treating the medical condition.
This is considered as having a real world effect. Presumably the diagnosis – since methods of treatment are not statutory subject matter under Section 7(i).
WO 2010128511
A method for determining a matching score between a first set of H1 feature points, and a second set of n2 feature points, the method comprising the procedures of: producing a triple-wise affinity tensor, including the affinity score of assignments of triplets of feature points of said first set of feature points and triplets of feature points of said second set of feature points; determining a leading eigenvector of said triple-wise affinity tensor; iteratively producing a binary optimal assignment vector by discretization of said leading eigenvector; and determining a matching score between said first set of feature points and said second set of feature points according to said triple-wise affinity tensor and according to said optimal assignment vector.
As claimed, not patentable, since the invention relates to a mathematical abstraction. If image analysis and comparison using the method had been claimed, the result would have been different.
WO 2006082590
A method for adaptive filtering of at least one pixel having an initial value of an image composed of pixels, the method comprising: calculating local expected value for the pixel; calculating local signal to noise ratio; calculating local filtration ratio based at least on said local signal to noise ratio; calculating a weighted average of the initial value and local expected value using said local filtration ratio as weight; and assigning the weighted average as a new value for the pixel.
Since this is applied to at least one pixel, this is not an abstract algorithm, but rather an applied algorithm for image processing and is patentable. Furthermore, this cannot be simply considered as automation of something formerly done by hand since manually processing in this manner would not have been practicable.
WO 01/37131
A method of classifying an image, comprising the steps of segmenting the image into a plurality of regions and, for each of at least one of the regions: quantifying each of a plurality of visual properties of the region on a numeric scale for the property; comparing each quantified property with a plurality of bands of the numeric scale for the property, each band being associated with a computer-readable character; and arranging in a predetermined order the characters associated with the bands in which the quantified properties fall to form a region character string.
Can not be done manually and classification is considered a real world effect. Patentable.
WO 2005005004
A method comprising the following steps to be performed electronically: selecting at least two participants from a plurality of participants; presenting a first image to each selected participant; and requesting each said selected participant to provide a description of said first image.
Although implemented by a computer, this is a manual process and is therefore not industrially applicable.
EP1184798
1. A method of processing and presenting data, comprising the steps of:
(1) identifying claim dependencies of claims in a user-selected patent;
(2) constructing a patent claims hyperbolic tree for said user-selected patent using said identified claim dependencies; and
(3) displaying said patent claims hyperbolic tree.
4. A method of processing and presenting data, comprising the steps of:
(1) retrieving patent citation information pertaining to a user-selected patent, wherein said patent citation information is backward patent citation information or forward patent citation information;
(2) constructing a patent citation hyperbolic tree using said retrieved patent citation information; and
(3) emphasizing nodes of said patent citation hyperbolic tree according to time-based criteria, wherein said time-based criteria includes at least one of filing date, priority date, length of pendency, effective filing date, invention date, critical date, on-sale date, public disclosure date, and public use date.
Although computerized, could be performed manually by a data searcher, therefore not patentable. However, if linked to specific electronic processes, might be considered patentable.
EP 1618498
A method for managing a treelike data structure for text-to-phoneme mapping for automatic speech recognition or text-to-speech, which method comprises steps for creating a decision tree comprising a parent node and at least one leaf node, said method comprising also steps for searching data from said nodes, characterized in that the decision tree is created by storing the nodes sequentially in such a manner that nodes follow the parent node in storage order, wherein the nodes refining the context of the searchable data can be reached without a link from their parent node.
Unlike the previous example, by virtue of the highlighted section, the claimed software implemented invention is linked to specific hardware and is thus patentable.
COMMENTS
In general, I think the Commissioner has got this right.
It is a shame that the guidelines issued a year after they were promised.
3 Comments | Business Method, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Agency, Israel Related, software Patents | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
David Zilberslag is a well-known, public-spirited, Ultra-Orthodox leader who raises funds for helping those in need. He filed a trademark application (No. 205341) for כח לתת – Koach l’tet, literally, “the power to give”.
The organization L’tet - Humanitarian Aid In Israel, (ארגון לתת) filed an opposition to the mark, but after the applicant, represented by well-known attorney, Dr Yaakov Weinrot, his statement of case with a request for costs, L’tet withdrew their opposition, stating that although they believe the opposition was legally justified, they did not think it was correct use of public funds.
The Commissioner for Patents and Trademarks, Dr Assa Kling, accepted that both the applicant and the opposer did important humanitarian work, but felt that it was more appropriate for such organizations to find other ways to settle their differences than to fight opposition proceedings and generate legal costs. Nevertheless, he could not deny the parties’ right to fight through the system.
Commissioner Kling ruled that in principle, the applicant was entitled to recover legal costs, but the awarding of such was discretionary on the Patent and Trademark Authority. No details of actual costs incurred were given, and generally actual costs are rarely given, but rather an estimate of fair costs. In light of the circumstances and the fairly early stage at which the dispute was terminated, he decided to use his discretion and not award costs at all.
COMMENT
This is, unfortunately, not the first time (and probably not the last time either) that two humanitarian organizations have been involved in trademark disputes.
Unlike the case of Johnson & Johnson vs. the American Red Cross, regarding the continued use of the red cross symbol by the ambulance service, this case has some merit, in that charities should choose distinguishable names so that donors are not confused who they are supporting.
There are a number of cases where different charities have confusingly similar names. Then again, “to give” is rather generic, and one wonders why anyone should have rights to a word like that for philanthropic purposes.
I can understand the Commissioner’s position regarding philanthropic organizations wasting public money on legal fees. It is, however, a moral – ethical position, not a legal one. From a purely legal standpoint, one wonders if it would not have been appropriate to have awarded the usual costs awarded to an applicant for a trademark, where the opposition is dropped after the applicant files his statement of case. Commissioner Kling is well within the scope of his discretion, and value based judgements have been in vogue since Former Chief Justice Aharon Barak abandoned formalism and instigated more value-centric judgements.
Although I have no strong feelings regarding this decision not to award costs, personally, I am a formalist who prefers the “law is an ass” approach to Law. I note that judges and commissioners are not democratically elected, and often the reasons and methods of selection for such judicial personnel are somewhat murkily concealed. In such a system, I would prefer judges and commissioners to judge and to award costs in a manner that neither favours plaintiff nor defendant and which is actually neutral to the type of goods or service that a trademark applicant provides.
I note that we do not know if the Attorneys were actually charging for their time or if they were working pro bono. If one organization that helps the needy opposes a mark filed by another organization, is it wrong that the losing organization should transfer funds to the organization that wins?
Leave a Comment » | Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Trademark, trademarks, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
Working in the field of intellectual property – as in many other disciplines – is dynamic. Partnerships and alliances have a beginning and an end.
After 3½ years of working together, Jeremy Ben-David and I have decided to end our partnership on December 31, 2011. We have both decided to pursue different directions within the IP field.
This is an amicable parting of the ways based on mutual respect.
Jeremy Ben-David will continue in the existing Jerusalem premises, as JMB Davis Ben-David – Patents, Designs & Trademarks. He may be contacted here: jmb@israel-patents.co.il
I will provide full details of my plans in January, but in the meantime, can be reached at mfactor@ipfactor.co.il
Wishing all clients, associates and blog followers a Successful 2012!
Michael
2 Comments | Intellectual Property, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Related, Israel Trademark, Patents | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
Omnibus claims laconically claim the invention as described in the specification and/or illustrated in the figures of a patent application, instead of reciting strctural detail or listing method steps.
Back in 2008, the then Israel Commissioner of Patents, Dr Meir Noam, banned independent omnibus claims as being unclear, see here. That was some five years after Dr Noam assumed office. He failed to explain why their clarity had suddenly changed for the worst, or why he’d suddenly noticed.
The present Commissioner of Patents, Mr Assa Kling, has now issued a circular ruling (Circular 008/011) due to the inherent lack of clarity, omnibus claims will henceforth not be allowed, whether submitted in dependent or independent form.
COMMENT
He is, of course correct, but then again, they are no more unclear now than they were previously. We hope that this indicates that henceforth, dependent claims are going to be examined on their merits. We also wonder if there is any scope for Israel courts to enforce the “pith and marrow” of a patent, regardless of claim deficiencies.
Leave a Comment » | IPO, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Office, Patents, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
A week ago, the Israel Patent Office informed us that henceforth dates of examinations would ONLY be published on the Official website. See here
As I pointed out at the time, since there is a limited number of qualified mentors and a limited number of candidates who have all registered as trainees and so are known to the Israel Patent Office, the work involved in informing potential examination candidates is minimal. Furthermore, the little community of IP practitioners in Israel generally subscribe to the contact list of the Israel Patent Office and so simply informing the contact list would be fairly trivial, and, I suspect easier than updating the website.
I am not sure which personnel at the Israel Patent Office follow my blog, but it would be nice to think that my comments were heeded. That as may be, we are delighted to inform readers that the Israel Patent Office has recanted and have notified the mailing list.
the details are also available on the website and can be found here
For those candidates who have problems with Hebrew legalese, in summary:
The oral exam will take place on Sunday 26 February 2012 and on Tuesday 28 February 2012, and candidates should keep both days free.
The written exam will take place in 19 February 2012 for those candidates wishing to display their skills at drafting chemistry or life science type applications. The exam that tests ability to draft mechanical, electronic and computer science type applications will take place on Tuesday 21 February 2012.
Candidates should register a month earlier, i.e. by 19 January 2012 using this form
There is a minor mistake regarding the fee to be paid. Never mind. Several questions remain open. for example, some practitioners, such as myself, draft in both the predictable and unpredictable arts. Can such candidates sit both written papers? Can they register to both, look at the paper on the 19th and decide not to attempt it, but to come back two days later?
We also wait with bated breath to see if the examination committee for the oral exams will include ‘not more than one patent attorney’ as required by Law.
Leave a Comment » | Israel IP, Israel Patent Office, Patents | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
Google Books scans books and stores a searchable electronic copy on Internet accessible servers, making a short extract of 2-3 lines available to searchers, together with name of author, title, publisher and year of publication.
If the authors consent to take part in the project, the can allow a larger extract t be available and in return, a link to online suppliers of the book is provided.
Jonathan Bruner, the author of “What you see from there” filed a Class Action against Google Books, on behalf of Israeli Authors whose copyright was he considers infringed by this.
In her ruling, Judge Tamar Bazak Rappoport refused to allow this to be considered a Class Action. She considers the Law of Class Actions to restrict the procedure to trade related disputes where a supplier or vendor provides a service to a large group of people. In the current instance, this is not the scenario. Google considers the authors who work with them as partners. That as may be, those who do not join the program are not clients or customers.
Regardless of whether there is a case of Unjust Enrichment or Copyright infringement resulting from Google’s activity, following the Israel Supreme Court Precedent 3126/00 State of Israel vs. E.Sh.T. Project Management and Personnel LTD, 2003, the instances where a Class Action is appropriate is limited to vendor-customer type cases.
She threw out the request for the case to be considered a Class Action and ruled NIS 10,000 to Google.
Class Action Ruling11319-04-11 : Bruner vs. Google Inc., 23 November 2011, Judge Tamar Bazak Rappoport
5 Comments | Class Action, infringement, Intellectual Property, Internet, Israel, Israel Copyright, Israel Court Ruling, Israel IP | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
The Israel Patent Office has notified the profession that Yehudit (Judy) of th trademark department has passed away. The funeral was on Sunday in Jerusalem, and the family will be observing the seven-day mourning period in the family home in Maale Adumim.
Leave a Comment » | Israel IP, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Trademark, trademarks | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
Jonathan Schreiber filed Israel trademark Number 222275 for Metabolin, a product to assist in dieting by slowing the metabolic rate, which, when it was allowed, published for opposition purposes and Merk KGaA, represented by Gilat Bereket & Partners of the Reinhold Cohen group, filed an opposition.
The evidentiary Declaration submitted by Merk, ran to over 150 pages, all in English. The applicant, Mr Schreiber, who apparently is acting without representation, requested that this be translated into Hebrew and Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi ordered that Merk do this, based on applicant’s claim that he didn’t understand English.
Merk / Gilat Bareket appealed this decision. they argued that they weren’t given an opportunity to oppose Schreiber’s request, in contravention of Circular M.N. 79 and of natural law, and should have had 20 days to respond. Substantively they argued that Schreiber was the sole shareholder of Anderson Medical LTD, whose website included various languages including English, and thus concluded that he understood the language. Furthermore, by providing affidavits in English, the witness would know what he was testifying and third parties would be able to access the material.
Ms Caspi Shoshani rejected the argument that the website indicated that Schreiber knew English, understanding that this merely indicated that he could have material translated at his expense. Substantively however, evidence should be filed in Hebrew or Arabic, but if both sides agreed to English being used, that was acceptable. There was no reason why applicant should bear the costs of translation.
Consequently Schreiber was in his rights to have documents translated into English. She suggested that if Merk were prepared to focus the discussion on relevant passages only, they could have these translated and forgo translating the full 150+ pages.
She noted that were she to come to the understanding that Schreiber did in fact have a good command over English language during the hearing or from his submissions, she would award damages to Merk, regardless of the final ruling.
COMMENT
I have no idea what is in the 150 pages, but can well believe that for an Israeli, this quantity of material in English is tiring. One wonders if it is necessary and it appears that Shoshani Caspi had her doubts as well.
There is an unfortunate practice, sometimes employed by litigants, of burying the opposing party in enormous quantities of material. Legal Counsel are often not responsible, since if their client provides large quantities of evidence, they would generally file all of it as failing to do so could be construed as malpractice. Consequently costs escalate.
From the way he writes his name in English in the trademark application and from the English description which is clearly a literal word for word translation from Hebrew into English of the goods covered by the mark, I think it is self-evident that Yonatan Shreiber is not able to easily review 150 pages of material in English.
2 Comments | Israel IP, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Trademark, trademarks | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
You are currently browsing the archives for the Israel IP category.
