Method and System for Producing a Document

October 6, 2015


Israel Patent Application number IL 215110 titled “Method and System for Producing a Document” relates to Rami Dotan and Tal Petel relates to a method of producing a “yearbook”.

The claimed invention was originally rejected as relating to an administrative methodology rather than to a technical method. Furthermore, the claimed invention was rejected as known, in light of WO 2006063327 “Method of creating a yearbook”.

In response to the first office action, the first inventor scheduled a meeting with the Examiner who explained the rejection in more detail.

The Applicant responded to the Examiner’s summary of that meeting, that there is a technical problem in the market in that the graphic designer does not know the students and so it is difficult to correctly link photographs with text.

On 7 August 2013, The Examiner issued a further Office Action detailing why the claimed invention did not relate to patentable subject matter under Section 3 of the Law and added some additional objections.

On 17 November 2013 The Applicant responded with a narrower claim set that allegedly overcame the objections.
In a final rejection dated 26 June 2014, the Examiner again refused the application and the Applicant requested a further Interview.

On 5 November 2014, the Applicant, his “representative for the purposes of the Interview” (apparently Patent Attorney Chaim Brandstatter) and the Examiner met, and versions 4 and 4 1/2 of the claims were discussed. Based on the similarity of the cited art WO 2006063327 “Method of creating a yearbook” and the claimed invention, the Examiner was persuaded to withdraw his section 3 (patentable subject matter) rejection and to focus on the issue of novelty and inventive step (non obviousness).

Furthermore, the parties accepted that the differences between the cited art and the claimed invention were features known to persons of the art.

Following the meeting of 6 November 2015, the Applicant submitted a further version (version 5).

Despite the Examiner considering the claimed invention to be obvious in light of WO 2006063327 together with two elements well known in the art, the Examiner did a further search and discovered USSN 2002/0055955 “Method of Annotating an Image” that allegedly taught these two features. Consequently, the Examiner refused the application under section 5.

The Applicant appealed this decision:

The Applicant felt that the 5th version of claims, submitted after 5 November 2014 was not addressed. The Examiner countered that the elements in version 5 were not supported. The Applicant considered that this went against the conclusion of the meeting, Examiner guidelines and Section 23 of the Law.

According to the guidelines, after issuance of a final rejection, the Applicant can either correct the outstanding issues or request an interview. In this instance, the Applicant attempted to do both, and following the interview, submitted a further claim-set. Thus the Examiner was within his rights to reject the Application following the interview, despite the further amendment submitted.

Neither the Law nor the Regulations provide a maximum number of Office Actions, but the Deputy Commissioner, Ms Jacqueline Bracha considers it unacceptable to understand that the examination allows infinite iterations and the Examiner cannot issue a final rejection.

That said, the case was considered borderline and the Deputy Commissioner was prepared to rule on the merits of the claimed invention, i.e. to look at the final version of the claims.

The claimed invention is:

1. A method for producing a document (30, 32, 36) comprising photographs (38) of persons (16A, 16B, 16C) and texts (42) associated with said photographs (38), said method comprising the steps of:
Manually capturing a single photograph or a single group (A, B, C) of photographs for each of said persons (16A, 16B, 16C), by a photographer (24), and loading the photographs while recording the singularity to a first table (58) of a database (52) being a part of a site (22) on the internet (14);
Manually providing by an organization in which said persons (16A, 16B, 16C) are members, a second table (26) to said database (52), said second table (26) comprising one text (42) for each of said persons (16A, 16B, 16C);
Manually matching, by persons familiar with said persons (16A, 16B, 16C) each of said texts (42) of said second table (26) with one of said photographs of said first table (58);
Upon said manual matching, programmably hiding that text (42) and the photograph matched thereto and any photograph grouped thereto, thereby avoiding failures;
Manually printing, by a graphic artist (20) accessing said database (52), each of said matched photographs (38) adjacent to the text (42) matched thereto,
thereby tracing a failure once a text of said second table (26) cannot be matched with a photograph.

Claims 2-10 are dependent method claims and claim 11 is for a corresponding system.

The claimed invention is similar to the first citation, with two features taught in the second citation.
Since the Applicant does not provide an alternative method of implementation to that given in the prior art, the claimed invention is either not enabled or lacks inventiveness.

Section 12 requires enabling disclosure. Where a method of achieving the claimed invention is not provided, one can conclude that either it is not possible or that it uses known elements and is thus obvious. Either way, in this instance, the Application does not provide enabling disclosure and is thus not allowed.

In conclusion, the Application was rejected.


In Australia, the patent corresponding to WO 2006063327 did issue back in 2005. I am not sure though, that it would still be considered directed to patentable subject matter as such computer facilitated inventions are rather difficult to obtain.
From the number of dubious publications with titles such as Directory of World’s Leading Patent Experts that I am invited to appear in subject to paying exorbitant fees, it does seem that there are patent attorneys who missed out on their high school yearbooks and are willing to pay to see their mug-shot and biography in a directory that no one reads.

Eden vs. Eden Wineries – Competing Marks

September 21, 2015

Out of Eden

Two wineries have had the same idea, and have each filed trademarks. One is for Eden, and the other for Eden Winery.

The Israel Trademark Office was not prepared to let two such similar marks coexist, and initiated a competing marks proceeding.


One of the parties filed evidence without the help of legal counsel and then sought legal counsel. On advice of said counsel, they requested to correct their submitted evidence ahead of the hearing arguing that under Section 41 of the regulations, the Commissioner can authorize such amendments.

The other party objects to this, and insinuates that it is destroying evidence, and that there is no procedure for ‘correcting’ an affidavit once it has been submitted. The applicant denies trying to hide anything and claims that the Patent Office has wide discretion regarding allowing such amendments.

The first party responded and the second party requested that the first party’s response be struck from the record. The Deputy Commissioner Ms Jacqueline Bracha decided not to relate to all the responses and counter responses, but only to the issue of submitting further evidence and correcting the submission. She noted that the first request understood that it was permissible under Court Procedural Rules adopted by the Patent Office in the relevant Circular (013/2012 v. 1), and that neither side had asked or received permission for subsequent submissions.

On the grounds that the procedure for competing marks is not set out in the regulations and that the hearing has not happened, the Deputy Commissioner Ms Jacqueline Bracha agreed with the request and allowed the submission.  As to the charges of ‘correcting the affidavit’, Ms Bracha considers that the applicant wishes to exchange one set of evidence with another and not correct the affidavit, and considers this allowable, whether as submission of additional evidence or as correcting the statement of case.

The Deputy Commissioner based her ruling on the following considerations:

  1. the Affidavit related to the key issues of when the mark was first used, extent of use and use in good faith. She was prepared to consider discrepancies between the first and second statements in her final ruling, but considered it appropriate to allow the exchange of evidence.
  2. The submission of the additional affidavit does not turn the clock back and result in a lost of opportunity to the competing party who can cross-examine on the apparent discrepancies if he so wishes.
  3. The competing party can relate to the evidence in the second affidavit in writing up until two days before the hearing.

Noting that such procedural irregularities cause additional work, she ruled costs in favour of the competing party, but due to the competing party submitting three rounds of procedural complaints she limited the interim costs to a mere 500 Shekels.


I am not sure that wine is associated with Eden. Wine and its afflictions were first discussed after the Flood. That as may be, there is no place in Israel that is called Eden. We to have an Arab village called Faredis which became corrupted as Paradise, and there is a Gei Ben Hinom, the Hinom Valley below the Old City of Jerusalem whose name as Gehenna become associated with hell.

The name Eden is used for by a natural food supermarket, by L’Oreal and others. Apart from bottled water marketed under Waters of Eden, the mark is already registered by Absolut Vodka in class 33, which is the same class as wine.

Israel Patent Office Statistics 2014

September 21, 2015

statistics 2
Under the Rules for Disseminating Public Information, the Israel Patent Office has published its annual report for 2014. The report may be found Annual Report 2014_(Hebrew). The English version is not yet available.
Paper windmill

The most interesting thing about the report is probably the graphics. Following previous years where the report was decorated with paper airplanes and paper hot air balloons, this year’s report is embellished with paper windmills. Why? The Answer, My Friends, is Blowin in the Wind.

I don’t intend extensively reproducing the graphs. Frankly they are not all that interesting. Instead, here are some observations and possible explanations.

6273 Patent Applications were filed in Israel in 2014 which is slightly up from 6184 in 2013, but still significantly lower than the 6793 applications filed in 2012. Indeed, Apart from 2013, the number of patent filings for 2014 was the lowest in a decade which peaked at 8051 applications in 2007. Applications pending examination are also down and more applications are being allowed. We attribute this to the fact that a precondition for the Israel Patent Office being an International Search and Examination Authority was for there to be a minimum of 100 examiners. This gives a favorable Examiner to application ratio that has resulted in shorter backlogs and more efficient examination.
18% of Applications are filed by local entities in 2014 which is the highest in the past decade. This statistic probably reflects the fact that many of the historic advantages of provisional applications are no longer the case and that small timers paying a reduced filing fee may find filing in Israel cost-effective compared to the US. Of course what this also means is that foreign filings made up a mere 82% of total filings in 2014, down from 88.8%. By a little mathematical manipulation, it seems that the number of foreign patent filings into Israel has dropped by about 250 or by 6.75% in the past year.

In an earlier post, I reported on a study by BdiCoface which found that 3,555 Israel based patents were filed in the US.  During this same period, only 1129 cases were filed in Israel by Israeli entities. In other words, Israelis and Israel companies are three times as likely to file in the US as in Israel. Some technologies, such as security related ones have to be first filed in Israel. Some cases, such as methods of treatment, are only patentable in the US. Nevertheless, filing Israel patents is clearly not a priority for Israel based patenting entities. It is certainly true that Israel is a small market. Nevertheless, since enforcement is considerably cheaper in Israel than in the US, I think that companies should consider filing in Israel more seriously. Particularly where there are Israeli employees and business partners.

After a slow start in 2011-2012, There has been a sharp rise in accelerated examination in Israel by suing the Patent Prosecution Highway, with 94 applications being examined via the PPH.

Interestingly, some 22 administrative decisions were made in 2014 to allow late entry into Israel from a PCT application of which 18 were favorable. Israel holds the relatively high standard of allowing late filings in circumstances that are ‘unavoidable’ rather than merely ‘unintentional’. I wonder if the 18 cases were truly missed deadlines due to acts of God, earthquakes, postal strikes and the like, or if the patent office is becoming more lenient in this regard?

Fascinating Bits of Trivia

As usual, the report includes some fascinating statistics such as Israel being the 24th most popular patent filing destination in the world, slightly more popular than the Ukraine, but less popular than New Zealand. When normalized by GNP, Israel remains the 30th most popular destination in 2013, with 480 patents per billion US dollars. This puts Israel ahead of Ireland at 449 patents per billion US dollars, but slightly behind Kazakhstan with 493 patents per billion US dollars. When normalized for population size, Israel comes in at 28th place with 149 patent applications per million residents. This is slightly less than Latvia (151) and Belarus (167) but ahead of Iran (146 patents per million).

There is a rallying in the number of PCT applications filed by Israelis, both in Israel and elsewhere which may indicate that we are pulling out of the effects of the World Wide Recession.

Some 59.4% of PCT applications filed in Israel specify Israel as the International Search Authority, up from 55% in 2013 and probably indicating customer / attorney satisfaction with the International Search Reports issued. In 2014, Israel conducted 9 ISRs for PCT cases outsourced by the USPTO. This was a mere pilot and may become a popular service.

A very significant percentage of patent applications filed in Israel are for pharma technologies. This presumably reflects the strong Israel pharma industry including Teva, Neurim, and generic companies such as Unipharm and Perrigo (technically an Irish company, but largely ran from Israel) rather than Israel’s attractiveness as a market.


The number of design applications filed in Israel last year was 1384 which is slightly higher than 2013 when 1353 design applications were filed, but still lower than for every year from 2004 through 2012. This follows the trend seen with patent applications filed in Israel. Bck in 2008, 1775 design applications were filed, so there is certainly potential for more of this type of work.

We anticipate that plans for Israel joining the international system for filing design applications will probably increase the number of designs filed into Israel, but reduce the billable work for patent attorneys. This is what happened with trademarks, where there has been an overall increase in trademark applications but this is mostly due to the Madrid Protocol applications designating Israel, and there has been a drop in trademark filings filed directly into Israel and thus a similar drop in billable work for patent and trademark attorneys.


With less work coming in, and an increase in both legitimate competition and illegitimate, i.e. licensed practitioners including patent attorneys and attorneys-at-law, encroachment from non-licensed practitioners, including jumped up paralegals, retired examiners, failed patent attorneys, retired US practioners and US companies that operate directly in Israel such as Finnegan et al. and others, there is apparently more people after less work, and things are unlikely to get better quickly.

It is easy to blame the depressing statistics on international trends and to see this as the fall out of the World Wide Depression. Indeed, filings peaked in 2007, and the Lehmann Brothers went bankrupt and things started spiraling out of control in 2008. Nevertheless, it is not impossible that the IPO can do to reverse the trend, or to speed up the recovery. I would suggest that the very fast and significant increases in various Israel Patent Office fees coupled with the relatively strong Shekel may be turning away potential filers. The USPTO and EPO essentially set fees to cover operating costs. The Israel Patent Office is a cash cow that generates income for the Israel Government and which has an income that is apparently twice its operating costs. I would suggest that many fees could be reduced to pre-Greed levels and salaries for Examiners and other IPO staff could also be increased to levels more commensurate with what attorneys in private practice earn. This can only increase the quality of the Israeli examination. With greater motivation, examination periods might become even shorter and standards might increase. This together with reduced filing and other fees could make Israel a more attractive component of potential IP portfolios.

Deleting Documents in Patent Cancellation Proceeding

August 4, 2015

fighting robots

Aquatron and Maytronics are competing Israeli companies that each make pool cleaning robots.

Maytronics was awarded Israel Patent IL 206154 titled “Pool Cleaning Robot”. Aquatron filed to have the patent cancelled.

In the cancellation proceedings various issues came up such as whether Aquatron had received permission from Maytronics to use the patent. However, in a procedural agreement between the parties, it was decided that the summation statements would not to relate to this issue.

In their summation, Maytronics, did, however relate to the alleged license to use the patent, and so Aquatron filed to have the relevant passages deleted from the file. In their defense, Maytronics’ argued that Aquatron had submitted emails that related to the agreement as part of their evidence, and this had voided the procedural agreement.

Ms Jacqueline Bracha used Contract Law (section 25a) to rule that what was agreed between the sides is binding. Had they intended to state that evidence should be suppressed they could have done so. The disputed sections on the patentee’s summation were ordered deleted from the record, but the emails submitted by Aquatron were allowed.

Novartis – Double Patenting in Israel

July 1, 2015


The present ruling relates to the issue of identical of overlapping patents and patent applications, and examines the ramifications of double patenting in Israel.

IL 2039732 is a Divisional Application of IL 176831 titled “Compressed Pharmaceutical Tablets or Direct Compression Pharmaceutical Tablets Comprising DRR-IV Inhibitor Containing Particles and Processes for their Preparation”.  During prosecution it received a final rejection and the Applicant, Novartis, appealed this final Examiner’s rejection.

The Examiner considered that the claims of the parent and the divisional application are directed to the same invention. After this issue was first raised, the Applicant amended the claims, but the Examiner considered that the amended claim set (claims 1-23) covered the same invention as claims 23-26 of the parent application. Based on 5293/93 Welcome Foundation vs. Patent Commissioner (1993), the Examiner rejected the claims of the divisional application. A telephone conversation was to no avail. The Examiner issued a final rejection noting that there were substantive issues not addressed, and the Applicant appealed this decision to the Commissioner of Patents claiming that the issue is one of interpretation of the Law.

The Commissioner held a hearing and allowed the Applicant to present a short summary of the comparative law in US, Europe, Australia, Japan, China and India. In this instance, the Examiner did not claim that the divisional had identical claims to the parent application, but that there was some overlap. According to the Commissioner, the issue is one of interpretation of Sections 2, 8 and 9 of the law. These state that an inventor is entitled to a patent, that a patent can only cover one invention and that where two or more applicants file for the same invention, the first to file is awarded the patent. The purpose of divisional applications is to prosecute additional inventions claimed within the same parent application.

In the Welcome case, claims 1-10 related to uses of a pharmaceutical preparation in the treatment of various diseases and claim 15 related to a method of preparation of the active ingredient.  Then Commissioner, the late Michael Ophir ruled a claim for use in preparing a medicament’ and ‘use in the treatment of’ were identical. He did not see that the application related to more than one invention. On appeal, Judge Winograd ruled that one can file and prosecution an application for a material, a second one for the method of fabrication and a third one for uses, provided each application is directed to patentable subject matter and there is no overlap between the cases. There Judge Winograd went on to rule that one application cannot include more than one patentable invention, i.e. one should not award more than one patent for one invention, and this is a corollary of Section 8 that a patent should cover one invention. One can file a plurality of applications for a plurality of related patents provided that each one is directed to a patentable invention and the claims are not identical or overlapping.

In the present case, both the parent IL 176831 and the divisional application IL 203972 have the same title. In IL 203972 there is one independent claim. Claims 23 and 24 of the parent IL 176831 each depend on claim 1, and claims 25 and 26 are dependent on claims 24 and 23 respectively.

The independent claim of IL 203972 is directed to using a powder to form a pill for treating a wide range of ailments. Claims 23-26 of the parent IL 176831 are directed to forming tablets and a corresponding process. The divisional relates to various states that are not in the parent application, but both applications have the same specification. According to the Applicant, the parameters are identical but the parent claims the process whereas the divisional application claims use of the active ingredient to prepare a pharmaceutical.

According to the Examiner, the divisional application claims the use of a formulation for treating a disease, where the formulation is given in claims 23-26 and the diseases treated are listed in claims 1-22. In both cases, the formulation is the same, the particle size is the same and the active ingredients and additives are the same as those given in claims 23-26 of the parent.

Novatis found the Welcome decision poorly claimed and poorly reasoned and could not see why two applications could not claim identical or overlapping inventions. They argued that where applicants are the same, there is no need to relate to identical or significantly overlapping claims, holding that the Israel Patent Law does not prevent multiple patenting. Novartis argued that Section 2 is merely a declarative statement that the applicant may file a patent. It does not have legal ramifications, and certainly does not limit the number of patents that the applicant may file. Section 2 does include the word “one” and it should not be read into the claim such that one patent may be requested for one invention. Support for this interpretation is found by contrast to Section 9 which relates to different applicants with patent applications for the same invention.

The parties are in agreement that different applicants cannot be awarded separate patents for the same invention. Novartis holds that the same applicant can be awarded two or more patents for the same invention. The Examiner disagrees. Novartis accepts that there is no economical justification or logic in an applicant having more than one patent, and even sees this behavior as unacceptable. However, so long as there is some difference between the two patents, it is legitimate to award the protection of both patents.

The Commissioner upheld the Examiner’s conclusion and ruled that so long as there is nothing in claim 1 of the divisional that exceeds the scope of the claims of the parent, there is no reason to allow the divisional.


In the US, the issue of double patenting is dealt with by filing a terminal disclaimer. Although this procedure prevents extending a term of protection (sometimes called ever-greening), it still has negative ramifications. Third-parties such as an alleged infringer may have to show that he is not infringing a number of overlapping patents. Likewise, a competitor may have to show a number of similar patents are invalid or not infringed. This places an unnecessary burden on third parties.

I think that although Novartis is correct that the Law does not explicitly prohibit multiple patents for the same invention, the Commissioner is correct that not to allow it is a reasonable interpretation of the intention and spirit of the law. Because of the large sums of money involved with pharmaceutical patents, this decision may well end up being appealed to the courts. If that happens, we will see how the Israel courts consider double patenting.

Can evidence submitted in an adversarial civil legal proceeding be kept confidential from the opposing party?

June 14, 2015

trade secretevidence

Israel Patent Number 132540 “System and Method for Direct Monetary Transfer Using Magnetic Cards” to Yehuda and Yigal Tsabari issued and then lapsed due to failure to pay the renewals.

Back on 24 July 2014 the Israel Patent Office agreed to the patent being reinstated. Generally, third parties who are utilizing the patented technology in good faith relying on the fact that the patent was abandoned are granted a non-transferable license that allows them to continue their business activities.  Nevertheless, the Israel Patent Office Decision to allow a patent to be reinstated is published for opposition purposes, giving third parties three months to oppose the lapsed patent being reinstated.

In the case of IL 132540, on 23 November 2014, Going Dutch LTD filed an opposition to the reinstatement. They claimed that the patent had not lapses unintentionally, but that Tsabari had knowingly abandoned the patent and that this was evident from the way Tsabari tried to enforce his patent.

Tsabari responded to these charges but requested that part of his response be kept confidential by the Patent Office and not made available to the opposer, claiming that the information constituted a Trade Secret. The documents to be kept secret included a document describing an enabling system, a draft contract with a credit card organization, a proposal for developing a system based on the patent, a contract with an investor and a letter from the investor, canceling the contract.

The patentee argued that these documents were confidential and for the parties themselves, and that their publication could compromise the patentee’s ability to compete in the relevant market. They were submitted as evidence that the invention had not been abandoned, but beyond that, their contents were not relevant to the issue in question, and so their contents should remain restricted.

The Opposer noted that the patentee had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the documents in question were fairly described as trade secrets. This was particularly the case due to the fact that the documents apparently related to a failed business transaction from ten years previously. Furthermore, the patentee was not a side in the agreements in question and therefore could not claim that any trade secrets were his secrets.  Substantially, any documents used to support a legal claim should be available for public inspection. In addition, the opposer noted that the documents should have been supplied together with an affidavit and their dates and the parties thereof and the editor thereof should be identified.



Section 23 of the Trade Related Torts Act 1999 give the courts (including the Patent Office) authority to prevent the publication of evidence considered as including trade-secrets and to allow only restricted access.

In recent Supreme Court Decision 2376/12 Rami Levi [a discount supermarket chain] vs. Moshe Dahan, July 8, 2013, Judge Amit ruled that there was a connection between the relevance of a document to a proceeding and the extent it could be kept confidential.

Essentially, where a document is relevant to a proceeding but one side claims a trade secret, the court has to weigh up the opposing rights of the parties and also to be aware of the potential damage to further entities not party to the a proceedings.

As a general rule, in civil proceedings, documents are available to all and confidentiality is the exception – See 7598/14 Theopholus Johnopholus (Theopholus III), the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem vs. Hymnota LTD., albeit the precedent relating to religious confidentiality and not to trade confidentiality.

Firstly, therefore, the court has to assess the relevance of the documents in question, which is a function of the arguments between the parties. In this instance, the argument relates to the restoration of a patent under Section 61 of the Patent Law 1967:

Any person may oppose a patent being restored within three months of the publication of the restoration notice on the grounds that the Commissioner [or deputy in this case] did not have grounds to order the publication of the request [i.e. to oppose the decision to reinstate].

Consequently, the discussion regarding reinstatement should focus on the three grounds for reinstatement:

  • failure to pay the fees resulted from reasonable circumstances
  • the patentee did not intend the patent to lapse
  • the patentee requested reinstatement as soon he realized that the fee was not paid.

The opposer considers that the patentee’s behaviour over the years was unprofessional, surprising and irresponsible. In other words, the patentee either wanted the patent to lapse or at least was unconcerned about his rights.

In response to these claims, the patentee described his attempts to commercialize the invention and submitted the documents about which he requested a secrecy order. The documents in question date to the period 2007 and 2008 and are thus of little relevance to the opposition proceeding.

Due to their lack of relevance to reinstatement, it seems that the right for confidentiality outweighs the right of access. They were prepared for the patentee or for exclusive licensee and were not published after they were not successful. There is no reason why these documents should enter the public record. Based on the statement of cases, the documents are not relevant and should not be published.

As to the lack of an affidavit, i.e. a signed statement testifying to that claimed, in Patent IL 118045 AstraZenca AB from 16 Jan 2005, there was a ruling to the effect that a statement should have been submitted.  However, in the Rami Levy case the Supreme Court ruled that the affidavit requesting secrecy was sufficient and there is no need for an additional affidavit accompanying the submissions. In the present case, the documentation as supplied is sufficient since the content is clearly sensitive, rendering superfluous the need for an affidavit supporting this contention.

Furthermore, the Patentee decided to submit these appendices to his statement of case and not to later submit in the evidence stage as he could have done, relying on Section 93 of the Patent Regulations 1968. Consequently, at this stage of the proceedings, the patentee does not have automatic rights to view the documents.

Thus in the meantime, the documents shall remain confidential. Should the Opposer consider these documents relevantat a later date, he is entitled to request their publication. At this time, no costs are awarded.

Opposition to reinstatement of IL 132540 “System and Method for Direct Monetary Transfer Using Magnetic Cards” to Tsabari, opposed by Going Dutch LTD., interim ruling by Jacqueline Bracha, 7 May 2015.


I am a little confused here.  The adversarial system requires that evidence brought in a legal proceeding be available to opposing parties to examine and challenge the validity thereof.

In this instance, the Opposer is using his legal right to oppose a patent being reinstated on the grounds that the patent was willfully abandoned. The Patentee has countered that there was no willful abandonment and has substantiated this claim with various evidence that allegedly shows this to be the case. In the circumstances, the evidentiary documents are considered by the patentee to be pertinent. If the patentee does not want the opposer to see the documents, he should retract them and base his case on other evidence.

That said, the 2008 documents are irrelevant as the patent only went abandoned on 24 October 2013, presumably retroactively on 24 April 2014, when the six month grace period past.

This patent was ‘abandoned’ for less than three months. The issue is when Tsabari realized that the patent had gone abandoned and when he tried to have it reinstated. Reinstatement is thus unlikely to be difficult, and one suspects that the patentee would be better served if he had chosen to use professional counsel for the reinstatement.

money plany

I had a look at the patent in question. It is a variation of the hoary old wedding present patent for directly transferring money from a credit card to the celebrants at a wedding. This is what a call a hardy perennial as approximately once a year some inventor comes in with this great idea he’s had.

Ironically the patent appears to be eminently voidable due to both lack of novelty and obviousness in light of the prior art and also on the substantive grounds that it is a software implemented business method and the fact that it is hardware implemented is insufficient to change this characteristic.

Alpha Dent Implants

April 26, 2015

Alpha Dent Implants        caps


Boris Simnovsky attempted to file Israel Trademark Application Number 243663 for “Alpha Dent Implants”.

Alpha Bio-Tech LTD successfully opposed the registration, presumably on grounds of Alpha being laudatory, Dent Implants being descriptive, and the combined mark being  providing a likelihood of confusion with Alpha Biotech as to the origin of the goods.

The Opposer requested costs of $5694 so The Commissioner, Asa Kling, related to the items in the list for costs in dollars as well, whilst noting his disapproval that the costs were not submitted in Shekels which is the currency that they should be billed and settled in Israel.

Alpha Bio-Tech LTD opposed the mark On 25 December 2013, the sides filed their statements and counter-statements and on 9 July 2014, after the period for filing evidence had passed, The Applicant, Boris Simnovsky, requested to withdraw the mark without a decision on costs, as he had “lost special interest in the Israel market”, and was no longer interested in the mark.

On 14 July 2014, Commissioner Kling ordered the mark withdrawn and the proceedings closed, but gave both sides the opportunity to file for costs, and on 14 September 2014, Alpha Bio-Tech LTD applied for costs.



A party that gives up during contentious proceedings such as an opposition is considered as losing, see Israel TM 171160 “Pine” in KT&G Corporation vs. Dunhill Tobacco of London LTD, and Israel TM 156955 Avon Products vs. Dean L. Rhoades. The Arbitrator of TM proceedings has the authority to rule costs from Section 69 of the Trademark Ordinance 1972. When ruling on actual costs, the adjudicator is required to determine if the costs claimed are reasonable, proportional and were incurred by necessity, See Basgatz 891/05 Tnuva vs. Input Authority P.D. 60(1) p. 600-615, Nevo 30 June 2005. The relevant considerations are the legal and factual complexity of the file, the amount of work done, especially in filings to the court, the behavior of the parties with respect to each other and to the patent office, equitable behaviour, etc.

As ruled in Tnuva Section 25, the parties must detail the basis of charges and the work done, and whether these were actually collected, and then the onus moves to the loser to explain why such costs should not be paid.

The Opposer’s costs of $5694 consisted of $1298 for preparing and filing the statement of opposition including official fees, $2926 for preparing evidence and $1500 for preparing the petition of costs.

The first two actions were supported by an affidavit and receipts but the charges were the charges were global and not itemized. There was no support for the final charge, and there was not even a framework agreement with the client to do this work.

The Opposer claimed that the applicant did not submit papers in a proper manner which resulted in additional work being incurred. Furthermore, the applicant requested that the opposer withdraw the last submission and the applicant would pay $4000, but this attempt to reduce expenses was unsuccessful.

The Commissioner accepted the Applicant’s allegations that the request for costs was laconic, but did not consider that the Opposer was therefore not entitled to reasonable costs and therefore decided to rule by thumb estimation based on the actual submissions.

After relating to all the relevant considerations (but at least as laconically as the Opposer) the Commissioner ruled total costs of 18000 Shekels ($4500).

Ruling of costs awarded to Alpha Bio-Tech LTD for successfully opposing Israel Trademark 243663 “Alpha Dent Implants” to Boris Simnovsky, costs awarded by Asa Kling 15 March 2015.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 613 other followers