Reviving Lapsed Patents in Israel

January 18, 2015

revival

The December crop of patent office decisions included a number of attempts to revive lapsed patents. The requirements for revival, broadly speaking, are that the patent lapsed unintentionally and that the patentee acted promptly to restore the lapsed patent. Three out of five requests for reinstatement were allowed. Two requests were refused due to tardiness in filing the request for revival.

IL 152965 to Shlomo Lavel unintentionally lapsed. Patentee claims to have paid the renewal fee on-line but could produce no evidence of this. He further claims to have made steps to commercialize the technology. When trying to pay the second renewal he discovered that the patent had lapsed. As Deputy Commissioner Ms Jacqueline Bracha was convinced that the patent lapsed unintentionally and that the patentee took steps to rectify the situation promptly on learning that the patent had lapsed, she has ruled that it may be revived and the decision will publish for opposition purposes.

IL 168588 to Sharine Polishing technologies LTD unintentionally lapsed. Patentee paid the renewal fee on-line but did not send the proof of payment to the patent office. Following a random check he discovered that the patent had lapsed. As Deputy Commissioner Ms Jacqueline Bracha was convinced that the patent lapsed unintentionally and that the patentee took steps to rectify the situation promptly on learning that the patent had lapsed, she has ruled that it may be revived and the decision will publish for opposition purposes.

IL 192499 to S. M. B. T. technologies issued on 25 June 2013. The first renewal should have been paid within three months, i.e. by 29 September 2013, and, when it was not paid within the subsequent six months, was deemed to have lapsed as of 29 September 2013. The current owners took possession on 3 September 2013 and responsibility was transferred to Zvi Ben Ari, Patent Attorney. Mr Ben Ari attempted to pay the next renewal on 3 June 2014 and learned that the patent had lapsed. He contacted the previous representatives for an explanation but was unsuccessful in this attempt. It seems that the patent was abandoned due to human error. The problem was that the request to reinstate was only submitted some four months later. In the circumstances, Deputy Commissioner Ms Jacqueline Bracha could not find that the patentee or his representative had acted promptly to reinstate as required by Section 60 of the Law, so reinstatement was not allowed. The patentee is entitled to a hearing under regulation 90.

IL 196017 to Microsoft lapsed due to failure to pay the second renewal which lapsed at the end of June 2013, and the fact that it had lapsed published in the February 2014 patent office journal. Microsoft filed for reinstatement, claiming that their foreign renewal service provider unintentionally noted the filing date as June 2008 instead of June 2007 and so docketed the renewal for 28 June 20014 instead of 28 June 2013. In April 2014 the local agents (Colb) were contacted and on 15 July 2014 they filed for revival with affidavits from the service provider. Although the reasons for the patent lapsing were explained, no explanation was provided for the nearly four months that passed before the reinstatement request was filed. In the circumstance, reinstatement was not allowed. The patentee is entitled to a hearing under regulation 90.


Israel Patent Application Number 142789 – The European Patent Wrapper

January 15, 2015

file wrapper

DSM IP Assets owns Israel Patent Application Number 142789.

PMS Armory Factory LTD opposed the patent issuing. The opposer wished to enter the file wrapper of the corresponding European patent application into the evidence, but the Adjudicator of IP, Ms Shoshani Caspi refused to allow this as the request was submitted late in the proceedings. The opposition was rejected on 17 October 2013 and the Opposer appealed to the District Court.

On 12 August 2014 Judge Shitzer ruled that the file-wrapper of corresponding patent application EP 1137828 should be admitted as evidence. See here. The Applicant appealed this to the Supreme Court who ruled that the case was ongoing and so they were not yet prepared to get involved.

The Applicant therefore requested an expedited decision by the Patent Office regarding EP 1137828 so that they would be able to benefit from the application before it finally lapsed in 4 1/2 years. The Opposer rejected this request, claiming that it gave the impression that they were time-wasting. They requested due process including the right to cross-examine the witness. Applicant argued that the file wrapper did not need to be submitted by a witness that would be available for cross-examination. The District Court merely ruled that the evidence was admissible. Submitting via a witness who would be cross-examinable was a mere time-wasting exercise.

The Opposer argued that the European file wrapper raised technical issues that required clarification, and the applicant argued that this was widening the grounds for opposition. The sides each tried to get the other’s case thrown out on technicalities and argued as to who should be cross-examined first to avoid giving one side an advantage over the other.

Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi ruled that as the European file wrapper was ruled as admissible by the courts, its relevance should be determined and now was not the time to try to stop it being considered by a technicality. She went on to rule that the European file wrapper should be submitted with a statement of its relevance to why the claimed invention is not patentable and the applicant could respond to the statement. There was a need to finish the opposition without further ado to provide legal clarity to the sides and to third parties regarding the validity or otherwise of the patent.

The Opposer should submit the European file wrapper in full within 14 days with no moe than six sides of arguments and the applicant would have 14 days to respond. The opposer would then have 7 days to sum up in three sides. That would be the time to decide whether a witness should be available for cross-examination. Should there be a hearing the sides would be required to sum up orally, and a final ruling would issue soon after the summary / hearing. No costs were awarded at this time.

 


Double Patenting in Israel

January 15, 2015

novartis

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

IL 2039732 is a Divisional Application of IL 176831 “Compressed Pharmaceutical Tablets or Direct Compression Pharmaceutical Tablets Comprising DRR-IV Inhibitor Containing Particles and Processes for their Preparation”. Novartis have appealed a final Examiner’s rejection.

The Examiner considered that 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. 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, whilst Applicant is appealing this decision claiming that the issue is one of interpretation of the law and has thus appealed to the commissioner.

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 have one 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 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 cases 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 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.

COMMENTS

In the US, the issue of double patenting is dealt with by filing a terminal disclaimer. Although that prevents extending a term of protection (sometimes  disparagingly called evergreening), 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.


Israel Patent Office Closures Due to Snow

January 6, 2015

snow in Israel

Snow is expected.  Living at 940 m above sea level, we had over half a meter last year, with power cuts, water pipes frozen, etc. I must admit, therefore, that I am rather less excited and enthusiastic about this than my 12-year-old son.

The Israel Patent Office has announced that it will be closed on 7th and 8th January 2014. All deadlines are extended to the next working day.

They say that “It’s an ill wind that does nobody any good.”

The Israel Patent Office is closed on Friday and Saturday anyway. This means that Applicants with a patent, design or trademark deadline of 7th or 8th January can file on Sunday 11th January 2015.

This works for the Paris deadline for filing PCT applications as well, but it should be noted that the USPTO may have a problem with a national phase of a PCT application that claims priority from a US provisional application.

 

 

 


Karelia Royal, Deleting Parts of the Evidence

January 5, 2015

Karelia Tobacco Company LTD has an Israel trademark no.103603 for “Karelia Royal”. Dubak LTD opposed the mark.

On 20 October 2014 Karelia requested that parts of the affidavit of Mr Gleiberman, witness for Dubak, was hearsay and should be deleted from the affidavit due to the trend in Israel law to narrow the range of acceptable evidence and to relate to what is substantiated.

The Adjudicator at the Israel Patent Office Ms Shoshani Caspi felt that establishing what is hearsay and what is known by the witness requires cross-examining the witness and can’t be decided up front with any degree of certainty.

The request was rejected but no costs were awarded.


Amending claims during opposition proceedings

December 11, 2014

fire retardant

The Israel Patent Law 1967 allows corrections and ammendments. Scribal errors can be corrected at any time. Claims can be amended during prosecution, provided there is support for the amendments in the specfication. Under Sectons 65 and 66, on allowance, both during opposition proceedings and after the patent issues at patentee’s request, the scope of the claims may be amended provided the amendment is a narrowing of the claim coverage.

Albermarle Corporation filed Israel Patent Number 141905 titled “IMPROVED BROMINATED POLYSTYRENIC RESINS AND THEIR USE”. The invention relates to brominated polystyrenes as a fire retardant. The patent was filed in 1999 and was allowed and published for Opposition Purposes in 2009.

Tarkovot Bromium LTD opposed the patent, and the two companies have been battling back and forth for the past 5 years. Now Albermarle has requested to amend the claims. The proposed amendments is the addition of the underlined in the following claims:

“1. A brominated styrenic polymer that has ∆E solution value of said polymer if dissolved at the level of 10 wt% in chlorobenzene in the range of from about 3 to about 15,÷ an ionic bromine content of 2000 ppm or less, and at least two of the following additional characteristics:

  • a)
  • b)
  • c)

23. A brominated polystyrene characterized in that it has
An ionic bromine content of 1000 ppm or less;

 

  • A TGA temperature for 1% weight loss which is 340°C. or higher;
  • A chlorine content, if any, of less than about 100 ppm Cl;
  • A thermal stability in the Thermal Stability Test of 1500 ppm HBr or less;
  • An actual Mw which is within about 20% of its calculated theoretical Mw, the theoretical Mw being based upon the actual bromine content of the brominated styrenic polymer and the Mw of the styrenic polymer reactant used to produce the brominated styrenic polymer; and
  • Essentially no content of impurities selected from the group consisting of bromodichloroethane, dibromochloroethane, dibromodichloroethane, and tribromochloroethane.; and
  • ∆E solution color value of said polymer if dissolved at the level of 10 wt% in chlorobenzene in the range of from about 3 to about 15.

48. A composition which comprises a thermoplastic polymer having blended therewith at least a flame retardant amount of brominated styrenic polymer having, prior to blending, a total bromine content of about 50 wt% or more, a TGA temperature for 1% weight loss which is 340°C. or higher, and a chlorine content, if any, of less than about 700 ppm, and a ∆E solution color value of said polymer if dissolved at the level of 10 wt% in chlorobenzene in the range of from about 3 to about 15.

56. A composition which comprises a thermoplastic polymer having blended therewith at least a flame retardant amount of brominated styrenic polymer having, prior to blending, a total bromine content above about 50 wt%, and a thermal stability in the Thermal Stability Test of 200 ppm HBr or less, and a ∆E solution color value of said polymer if dissolved at the level of 10 wt% in chlorobenzene in the range of from about 3 to about 15.

 

 The parties agree that the additional phrase “∆E solution color value of said polymer if dissolved at the level of 10 wt% in chlorobenzene in the range of from about 3 to about 15″ is supported by the specfication.

 

 

Patent Office Interim Decision re Il 141905,  Torkovot Brome vs. Albermarle, Decision by Asa Kling, 12 November 2014.


European and Israel Patent Offices Sign a Bilateral PPH

December 10, 2014

pph

The European Patent Office (EPO) and the Israel Patent Office (IPO) have agreed a patent deal set to speed up examinations at both offices. Starting next month, the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) will allow applicants to request accelerated examination of a patent at either office provided the claims have been previously deemed acceptable by the other. The agreement was signed on December 4 by heads of both offices in Brussels, Belgium.

Apparently Asa Kling, director of the IPO, said the programme would “enhance co-operation between the offices” and further strengthen the economic and technological relations between Israel and Europe.

COMMENT
We see this as a great development, not least because Israel Applications may be accelerated fairly easily under a variety of routes including Section 17c of the Israel Patent Law 1967 and relevant patent office circulars. European Applications can linger in the queue for examination for quite a while, and incur annual maintenance fees. Then again, once allowed, a European patent has to be ratified and is then subject to renewal fees in the countries where it is ratified. The main thing is that this gives applicants choice and flexibility.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 372 other followers