Israel Patent Office on Facebook

August 28, 2014

like

The Israel Patent Office has an official page on Facebook.

I had a little visit or (is it called surfing?). There is a cute list of IP conventions and pictures of the relevant cities: Budapest, Rome, Madrid, etc. I appreciate the irreverence and this is the sort of thing that I do on my blog.  However, it seems a little odd watching the official Patent Office doing it though. The former head of the USPTO had a blog and the UK have one called IP Facto (the name seems a rip-off of this one).  The Facebook page has a five-star rating from the half-dozen people (none of whom I’ve heard of) who rated it.

Those that liked the Israel Patent Office page (221 so far and counting) also liked the Administrator General and Official Receiver page.

I am one of those Luddites that keeps forgetting his passwords for linked-in and Facebook so I don’t expect that I will be very active monitoring this node on the social network.

I was in Rome last week with the family. (We stayed in an appartment on the Piazza a fungi. We went on to Naples which was a bit of an anti-pasti, and is covered with graffiti). Now apparently Rome wasn’t built in a day, and there are lots of half-finished structures, one of which, the coliseum, was apparently built with funds from the sacking of Judea. Knocking down a Temple to God and using the spoils to build a sports stadium for killing gladiators and rare animals seems a strange set of priorities. Back then, the crowds could have gladiators dispatched by thumbs up or thumbs down. Now you can join the excitement and like or dislike the Official Patent Office website. What fun!


Submitting Corresponding European File Wrapper In Israel Patent Opposition Rejected on Procedural Grounds but Decision Overturned by Court

August 18, 2014

tangled web

DSM filed Israel Patent Application Number 142789 for high directional – fibers. The patent claimed priority from Dutch Patent NE 1010413 from 28 October 1998. The patent covers the fibers themselves and both ropes and anti-ballistic equipment fabricated from the fibers.

The Application issued under Section 17c, based on the corresponding United States Patent No. US 6,916,533 and published for opposition purposes in April 2006. DSM also has a couple of corresponding European patent applications. One was rejected and the other, EP 113828, was allowed but with narrower claims.

Mifalei PMS Migun (PMS Protection Factories) filed an opposition which was heard by Adjudicator of IP, Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi. The opposition proceedings included a hearing on 28 and 29 June 2011, during which the Opposer requested to submit the file wrapper of the corresponding European case, but Ms Shoshani Caspi refused to allow this to be entered. On 17 October 2013, the Adjudicator upheld the patent and rejected the opposition. The Opposer has appealed this decision, particularly the intermediate decision not to allow the file wrapper of the European case to be submitted.

The Appeal

The Opposer filed a long-winded and detailed Appeal that claimed that in addition to factual errors and illogical conclusions regarding novelty and inventive step, the arbitrator also erred on legal principle. Specifically, the Arbitrator did not give sufficient weight to the fact that the Applicant had not made the European file wrapper of record, contrary to the duty of disclosure and the obligation of equitable behaviour. Specifically, the Applicant did not make the fact that one European patent was refused and one was significantly narrowed, concealed a graph and failed to provide an English translation of a Japanese patent cited as prior art, merely providing the Japanese original.  Accepting the case under Section 17c without considering the other family members and applying technical discretion was considered unacceptable, as it transferred the burden of proof to the opposer. Furthermore, the Opposer claimed that the standard of proof that the arbitrator demanded was beyond reasonable doubt rather than simply the burden of evidence generally required in civil procedure. The Opposer challenged the patent office for failing to examine the patent, and for simply relying on the US patent under Section 17c.

The Opposer claimed that when requesting allowance under Section 17c, the applicant should have proactively submitted all corresponding cases, and referred to District Court ruling on the issue.

The Patentee’s Response

The respondent (patentee) argued that the arbitrator had given a detailed and reasoned ruling based on factual and professional issues that the courts didn’t generally consider on Appeal. As to the graph, it was considered irrelevant to the adjudicator’s upholding of the Novelty and Inventiveness of the Application. The patentee rejected the claim that the duty of disclosure required submitting English language translations of all references, unless requested to. The Existence of corresponding European patent applications was alluded to in the file wrapper of the Israel application. Once allowed under Section 17c, there is no longer an ongoing duty of disclosure.

The patentee argued that the appeal was not one against the intermediate ruling concerning the European file wrapper. The appeal was only against the final decision from October 2013. The Patentee considered that the time to appeal intermediate rulings had long past. Furthermore, amending the statement of appeal was insufficient, since this was a separate appeal on the decision, not on intermediate rulings, and a request to amend the ruling was first raised in a hearing in April 2014.

The appellant countered that the original hearing had mentioned the intermediate ruling as grounds for appeal, both in the statement of appeal and in the Statement of Claims, and the intermediate decision was appended to the file. Case-law does not require the appeal to include the protocol. The request to amend the Statement of Appeal was not to introduce this as new material, but merely a safety precaution.

The Ruling

Under regulation 411  of the Civil Court Procedure, in addition to being able to appeal intermediate rulings after they are given, appellant may appeal intermediate as well as final rulings by right when appealing after the final ruling issues. Respondents (Patentee’s) claims that the appeal does not relate to intermediate rulings is not accurate. Point 76.2 of the Notice of Appeal notes that the adjudicator erred in failing to allow the European file wrapper to be entered into the Opposition. The fact that she did not give sufficient weight to the European patent office’s conclusions is mentioned earlier in Point 7.5. Reference is also made in Point 12 and Point 43. This was also fleshed out on 19 March 2014 in Chapter 3(6) of the main claims.

On examining the protocol, this intermediate ruling does not appear under the heading Decision or Ruling. It is scattered over 13 pages of protocol and is not detailed. It seems that the arbitrator was simply over-whelmed with the amount of material submitted. It is only in the final ruling that the decision not to allow the introduction of the European file wrapper is first discussed formally with legal support and so it is reasonable to appeal it when appealing the decision as a whole.

Filing the protocol regarding the intermediate ruling only on 28 Feb 2014, is somewhat unacceptable in that it contravenes Regulation 419(1) of the Civil Procedures. The appellant’s statement that they do not need to submit intermediate rulings and protocol is problematic and they should have submitted it. Nevertheless, since the protocol does not clearly state this as a Ruling or Decision, this flaw may be dealt with when awarding costs.

Citing the Regulations, the Judge noted that the court has the discretion to allow the Statement of Appeal to be amended at any time, awarding costs if necessary, so there was nothing inherently wrong with the appellant’s request to amend the Statement of Appeal. Indeed, contravening the procedural regulations does not disqualify a case in and of itself.

Judge Judith Schitzer was prepared to allow the protocol to be entered and the intermediate ruling to be appealed, despite procedural flaws, and went on to relate substantively to the issues raised by the European file wrapper.

The Arbitrator justified refusing to allow the European file wrapper to be considered on three grounds: the timing, failure to submit an affidavit and a suspicion that the respondent would not be able to cope with the new evidence.

In the ruling, Judge Schitzer  determined that the Adjudicator Ms Shoshana-Caspi should have considered the timing, the relevance of the material in reaching a true and just ruling, the damage to the parties if additional material is allowed to be considered, and whether the other party has the ability to relate to the new evidence.

As to the timing, the Opposer wished to introduce the additional material during the evidence stage and not after this stage was concluded. The Opposer requested to confront the expert witness of the Applicant with the European file wrappers. The Applicant countered this request by claiming that the new evidence should have been submitted at the evidence stage and not during cross-examination of the witness. If there was a delay here, it was a relatively minor delay, and is not comparable to submitting evidence after the evidence stage is closed, or during an Appeal. Citing Gabai vs. Aminach, Judge Schitzer noted that in patent appeals, the appellate court has wider jurisdiction than in other appeals and can hear new evidence if required to in order to get to the truth. How much more so (a fortiori) should the opposition proceeding by prepared to hear new evidence if it will help to clarify whether or not an invention is patentable.

Where one corresponding European patent is cancelled and one is severely narrowed, there is a prima facie basis to assume that the assumption of validity at the basis of a Section 17c allowance is suspect, and the Opposer should be able to have the evidence considered. Furthermore, the European file wrapper is not a surprising piece of evidence. The Applicant mentioned the corresponding European case, albeit laconically and possibly with insufficient detail, but nevertheless, should not be surprised by its inclusion; particularly as DSM was the applicant in Europe. In the circumstances, the European case should have been considered in attempting to do justice. The attempt by the Adjudicator to manage the case efficiently and smoothly is understandable but should not come at the cost of reaching a just conclusion, and the late stage at which the European file wrapper was submitted can be grounds for adjusting costs.

The Judge then cited from a pertinent Supreme Court ruling (1297/01 Michaelowich vs. Clal Insurance LTD) and noted that in patent cases there were a fortiori grounds to be even more lenient.

Furthermore, in the Statement of Case, the Opposer stated that they would refer to corresponding file wrappers, so the Applicant had plenty of time to prepare themselves.  The judge refrained from ruling whether or not the applicant should have been more open in acknowledging the European case. Suffice to say, that when it did come up, they should have related to the issues of novelty and patentability instead of fighting to prevent it being considered.

Judge Schitzer went on to note that the patent regulation 63 actually states that after the end of the evidence stage the parties cannot submit additional evidence without the permission of the Commissioner, implying that prior to the end of the evidence stage they can submit additional evidence, and even after this stage, the Commissioner has the discretion to allow such additional evidence to be submitted and should apply judicial consideration wisely instead of narrowly relying on procedural grounds. Further evidence to this wide discretion was found in Regulation 72.

As to the lack of an Affidavit, the Judge noted that if Ms Shoshana Caspi had felt the need for one, she could have asked for it, but not all evidence actually requires affidavits. Some evidence is self-evident and can be considered on its merits. Indeed, the Opposers raised this issue themselves, stating that the file wrapper speaks for itself.

Since, as ruled in 6837/12 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. it is preferable for the specialized courts to consider the issue of novelty and patentability, Judge Schitzer referred the case back to the Adjudicator to consider patentability of the claims in light of the European file wrapper.

In conclusion, Judge Schitzer stated that she was refraining from addressing the issue of novelty and inventiveness head on and also was leaving it to the arbitrator to decide whether or not an affidavit was warranted, and if so, to indicate to the parties what the affidavit should include.

Nevertheless, since the Opposer (the appellant) was responsible for the procedural irregularities, despite accepting the Appeal, she awarded costs of 15,000 Shekels against the appellant.

Civil Appeal 34029-01-14 Mifalei P.S.M Migun vs. DSM, Judge Judith Schitzer of Tel Aviv District Court, 12 August 2014.

COMMENTS

I suspect that the judge’s last remark regarding affidavits was tongue-in-cheek. Indeed I have been fighting the Israel Patent Office regarding the need to supply affidavits to support self-evident facts.

The Judge is correct in her analysis and there is a moral here, in that with patent issues it is neccessary to prefer substantive arguments rather than to have awkward material dismissed on procedural grounds.

Here

 

 

 


Ella Moss, are there grounds for Judicial Estoppel?

August 18, 2014

Ella Moss

Israel Trademark Number 241679 “Ella Moss” (the word mark, not the mark with butterfly, but it is a nice illustration, and this isn’t the sort of blog where we feature models in swim-wear) was filed by Mo Industries LLC. the mark covers clothing, namely, tops, bottoms, pants, skirts, jackets, coats, sweaters, cardigans, dresses, vests, ties, sleepwear, lingerie, undergarments, swimwear, rompers, baby bodysuits, layettes, activewear, namely, tops, bottoms, athletic clothing, sweatshirts, sweatpants, sweatshirts and jerseys, outerwear, namely, coats, jackets, parkas, vests and fleecewear, belts, footwear and headwear; all included in class 25 and retail store services featuring clothing and accessories, belts, footwear, headwear, purses, jewelery; all included in class 35.

Shimon Bodakov filed an opposition to the mark.

The interesting wrinkle in this case is that there is a corresponding case, Israel trademark no. 242680 “Ella יופי שנוח לך” (literally Ella, comfortable beauty) covering Clothing, footwear , headgear in class 25, that was filed by Shimon Bodakov and is being opposed by Hachette Filipacchi Presse. Shimon Bodakov is represented by Gabriel Kramer, and both Mo Industries LLC and Hachette Filipacchi Presse are represented by Dr Shlomo Cohen Law Offices.

The “Ella יופי שנוח לך mark is reproduced below.

Ella

In this case, Mo Industries requested that the trademark opposition be thrown out since in the 242680 case Bodakov / Kramer argued that there was no similarity between Ella Moss and  the graphical mark Ella יופי שנוח לך, whereas in the current case they are arguing a confusing similarity between the marks. Due to the contradictory arguments, the opposition should be thrown out.

Bodakov / Kramer responded that there is no estoppel. The other, ongoing opposition was indeed filed first, but has not been ruled on, and it is the job of the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks to decide whether or not there is confusing similarity or a likelihood of confusion. In the meantime, there is no reason why they have to be consistent.

The Ruling

The principle of Judicial estoppel is that a party claiming one thing in one case, once that claim is accepted, cannot deny that claim or make a contrary claim in a later case, even against a different party. A guiding principle of the Judicial estoppel is that the party succeeded in the earlier case. See 513/89 Interlego A/S vs. Exin-Lines Bros. S. A. and 6753/96 MM. Ch. T. vs. Friedman. The rationale against requiring success in the first ruled case is to prevent contradictory rulings by the courts.

In more recent rulings, the principle that the first case has to be successful is left open,  and it appears that there is no definite ruling on the issue. See 4224/04 Bet Sasson vs. Shickun Ovdim v’Hashkaot LTD. and 6181/08 Vinoker vs. The Head of VAT in Acre. The current trend is to look at the issue of equitable behaviour of the parties.

In this instance, there are two parallel opposition proceedings concerning Ella Moss and Ella יופי שנוח לך. In the 242680 case, Bodakov / Kramer argued that the two marks are not confusingly similar, and in the current case, which was filed later, Bodakov / Kramer filed an opposition on the grounds that the two marks were confusingly similar.

Nevertheless, it is not clear that there is a judicial estoppel in this case, since there has not been a decision. Furthermore, it is difficult to claim inequitable behaviour on the part of Bodakov / Kramer since they are simply interested, that should the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks decide that the two marks are indeed confusingly similar, that their mark should be preferred. Furthermore, should the opposition to 241679 be cancelled, then the mark would automatically be allowed and this would hobble Bodakov / Kramer since they would have to fight an issued mark and not a pending one.

Due to the seriousness of throwing the case out based on the estoppel and inequitable behaviour construction, which would deprive the Opposer of his day in court, and noting that the case-law does not consider arguments in pending cases as estoppeling, Ms Shoshani Caspi (the adjudicator of the case) rejected the request to throw the case out.

At the focus of both cases is the question of the confusing similarity between the two marks, however the parties are not identical so Ms Shoshani Caspi considered that it would not be fair to combine the two cases. the request for throwing out the opposition was rejected, but in the circumstances, no costs were awarded.

Ruling in Ella Moss, 22 July 2014.

Comments

As the marks are identical and the lawyers are identical, despite the different parties represented by Dr Shlomo Cohen Law Offices in the two cases, it could be argued that there are good grounds to combine the cases, or at least to offer the parties the opportunity to fight the two cases together. Such a development would save valuable time for the arbitrators at the patent office. It is,  however, correct for Ms Shoshani Caspi to overcome the temptation. Hachette Filipacchi Presse could conceivably want to challenge Ella Moss, for the same reasons that they have challenged Ella יופי שנוח לך. One assumes that the issue involves the word Ella for women’s fashion. Combining the cases could therefore result in Dr Shlomo Cohen Law Offices representing both Hachette Filipacchi Presse and Mo Industries LLC and  having to argue that Ella is both distinctive and generic, and that would seem to raise judicial estoppel. It would seem unlikely that in a combined action they could fairly represent the two parties to the best of their ability. Also, working out how to charge two parties sharing a combined case could be complicated.

The ruling provides insights into the concept of Judicial Estoppel and is a valuable intermediate ruling.

 

 


Israel Patent Number 94634, Extending and Shortening Patent Term Extensions

August 18, 2014

Rapamune Sirolimus

Under Section 64 of the Law, basic pharmaceutical patents may be extended for up to five years past the 20 years standard maximum term, in order that the drug developer is able to market the drug exclusively for a period of up to nine years. Since the Patent Term extension was first introduced, granting patent term extensions, but enabling generic competitors to try to synthesize but not stockpile the patented drug, the Law has been amended a couple of times. The first time was the seventh amendment, designed to allow Israel generics to compete with generic companies in other jurisdictions by reducing the term of patent term extension in Israel, to the shortest term allowed in another jurisdiction having patent term extensions (Bolar Countries). Under US pressure that the Israel Law was too generous to generic companies, the Law was amended again in the eleventh amendment in 2014.

Sir Roy Calne filed Israel Patent Number 94634 for COMPOSITIONS INHIBITING TRANSPLANT REJECTION IN MAMMALS USING RAPAMYCIN AND DERIVATIVES AND A CHEMOTHERAPEUTIC AGENT in June 1990, claiming priority from a case filed in June 1989. The patent issued in July 1996.

In June 2001, the applicants requested an patent term extension and in September 2002, a sole license was granted to Wyeth.

The drug was registered in January 2001 and an extension was granted in January 2004. The extension covers the drug RAPAMUNE and the active ingredient SIROLIMUS. The drug term extension was granted on the basis of the corresponding US patent no. US 5,100,899 whose product received marketing approval back in September 1999.

In the request for patent term extension, the applicant reserved the right to change the basic patent they were basing the application on, if a different patent of a Bolar country should lapse earlier.

the patent term extension issued on 25 January 2004 and the applicant was informed that it would publish in the January 2004 journal. No oppositions were filed against this extension. In the same letter, the Examiner requested that the applicant update regarding any patent term extension of the basic patent in the US, and any other patent extensions.

In November 2004, the applicant responded that the US patent application was still pending and that he required a time extension to respond to the Examiner. Furthermore, the applicant noted that it was examining the possibility of basing the patent term on the corresponding Australian patent.  After further correspondence, it transpired that the Australian patent term was extended until 5 June 2015 and the applicant therefore requested a full five-year extension in Israel based on the Australian patent.

After the 7th amendment of 2006, to the Patent Law, the applicants were required to detail all patent term extensions and to provide copies of the documentation regarding the license to sell the drugs and the patent term extensions. Neither the applicants or their representatives responded to this request.

In January 2013, the Association of Israeli Pharmacists filed a request to cancel the extension order, which was accompanied by an affidavit from Dr Ron Tomer (a director of Unipharm), who is a member of the committee of the chemical and pharmaceutical division of the Association of Israeli Pharmacists.

In June 2013, Wyeth responded to the cancellation request, submitting an affidavit of Dr Alvin David Joran, the legal adviser of Pfizer Inc. who had purchased Wyeth in 2013. The Association of Israeli Pharmacists filed a counter argument that included an Opinion by Elizabeth J Holland, an attorney at Kenyon and Kenyon, and also a further affidavit of Dr Ron Tomer. Pfizer decided not to cross-examine  Elizabeth J Holland on her affidavit but both Dr Alvin David Joran and Dr Ron Tomer were cross-examined in a hearing on 27 May 2013.

The Association of Israeli Pharmacists maintain that under the 7th Amendment, the longest available extension should be no more than 7 July 2013. Furthermore, this was the longest period available before the 7th Amendment, i.e. based on US 5,100,899. Furthermore, there is a specific and explicit requirement for equitable behaviour in Section 64B(i) and the applicants failure to respond tot he requirement to detail all patent term extensions and to provide copies of the documentation regarding the license to sell the drugs and the patent term extensions was itself grounds to deny any further extension.

The patentee argued that the interim arrangement of the 7th amendment damaged their property rights and was thus illegal. The patent term extension was legally obtained and the patentee followed their legal advisors. Their whole business plan was based on the patent term extension that was granted.

The Ruling

The interim period is covered by Section 22 of the 7th amendment:

“(a) The rulings of the Law, including Section 164a and Section 18 apply to pending requests for extension periods that were applied for before this law comes into effect, providing that the basic patent has not yet lapsed.

(b) Despite that written in part(a) above, the period of patent term extensions that issued prior to this amendment entering into effect, will not suffer due to them not fulfilling the constraints of parts (5) and (6) of Section 64(d) of the main Law, as it appears in part 3 of this law.

On the face of it, the interim period applies to the present case, where the patent term extension was granted on 5 June 2005, and the patent would have lapsed on 6 june 2010, which is after the amendment entered into force in January 2006. That said, the patentees claim that this is illegal in that there property rights are retroactively cancelled.

The Commissioner noted that this was not the first time that the validity of the various amendments to the patent term extension of the Patent Law has been challenged. See for example 70390 Wyeth vs. Dexcel LTD (ruling by then Deputy Commissioner Axelrod), 83148 Roche Diagnostics GmbH (ruling by then Commissioner, Dr Meir Noam). In those rulings the interim arrangement and its legality in the face of Section 8 of the 1980 Basic Law “Human Honour and Freedom”.  In those cases, it was ruled that the interim arrangement was legal and did not contravene the property rights enshrined in the Basic Law.

Without entering the basic issue of retrospective legislation, it is clear that the interim arrangement includes balances. In Wyeth, Axelrod summarizes “in all cases where there is a point in time that legislation comes into effect, there will always be parties that find themselves on the right and wrong sides of this time period.”

Similarly in Roche, Dr Noam ruled that the entire edifice of Intellectual Property is built on balances between competing interests, and the legislators are allowed to periodically change the point of balance. This is still the case if the balance is to address the disadvantage of the Israel generic drug industry. Furthermore, he went on to rule that interim periods are sometimes to address discrimination against one party or another, and sometimes simply to enable a smooth transition from one regime to another. Although the interim period has to be constitutional, judges should minimize their interference with legislation. (3734/11 Dodian et al.. vs State of Israel).

The current Commissioner, Asa Kling could not see justification in deviating from his predecessors regarding their positions concerning the interim period. He also noted that this wasn’t an issue of the interim period at all, but of the whole amendment, which moved the point of balance in favour of the generic industries.  Since the court had accepted the legality of the amendment in Lundbeck I and Lundbeck II, Novartis and Neurim he considered the issue moot. It is for the legislative body to determine the correct balance between competing interests, and he should be very careful before encroaching on that power. Particularly concerning the economy, one should be particularly circumspect. It is not for the courts to determine economic policy, determine economci preferences or to change internal balances. see 4769/95 Menachem vs. Ministry of Transport and 3145/99 Bank of Israel vs. Hazan.

The Commissioner noted that the amendment was not being challenged, implicitly accepting that the balance struck was fair. Rather, the issue was only that of changing the period. Anyway, the Supreme Court has noted that adversely affecting predicted sales was not to be considered as detrimentally affecting property rights, and Joran’s affidavit was insufficient to base a counter-claim.

The Commissioner also noted that the amendment itself was amended again in Amendment 11 of 2014, although this does not materially affect the issue.

Section 64(9)a states that the Extension period will remain in force, subject to Section 64(10), for a period comparable to the minimum period of any extension granted to the basic patent in a country having patent term extensions. Section 64(10) states that despite Section 64(9), (3) the patent term extension will lapse no later than the period under which the first patent term extension lapses in on a recognized country.

There is no argument that the US patent was extended for 1492 days and lapsed on 7 July 2013. This was the first patent to lapse and is the shortest period of any extension allowed.

Both Holland and Joran claimed that there was also an additional six months pediatric exclusivity period in the US . The Commissioner rejected this claim noting that Section 64(10)3 relates to the patent term extension and does not relate to other exclusive rights. This interpretation is in accordance with the ruling concerning Kirin-Amgen, Inc. 110669.

As the request for cancelling the further extension was accepted, the claims concerning the equitable behaviour of the patentee were considered moot.

In light of the above, Commissioner Asa Kling ruled that the patent in question will lapse in July 2013 and notice of this will issue in the July 2014 journal.

Israel Patent Number 94634, The Association of Israeli Pharmacists vs. Sir Roy Calne  and Wyeth, Ruling Asa Kling 13, July 2014.

 

 

 

 


Can an Affidavit of an Opposer be Relied Upon in a Section 34 Ex Partes Decision?

August 17, 2014

ex parte

Israel Patent Application 156034 is joint owned by Serguei Borisovish Sivolenko and by DIAMCAD N.V.

After an opposition was withdrawn, Deputy Commissioner Ms Jacqueline Bracha used her discretion power under Section 34 of the Law to continue the opposition as an ex-partes proceeding.

The Applicants responded that since the opposition was withdrawn, Ms Bracha could not rely on Mr Akiva Caspi’s affidavit as submitted by the Opposer, since he was not cross-examined on it.

Ms Bracha accepted the criticism and consequently has invited the applicants to appear before her on 10 September 2014 to state their case at an Oral hearing Under Section 74c of the Patent Regulations 1968. She has given them the option of either bringing along Mr Caspi at their expense, as a witness to be cross-examined by Ms Bracha, or they can submit a further affidavit or statement and a hearing will be arranged a week later.


Inventor Compensation Request Frozen Pending Bagatz Decision in Barzani vs. Iscar

August 17, 2014

anonymous

The Committee for ruling on employee compensation for a service invention has agreed to freeze the proceedings pending whether or not the Supreme Court decides to hear Barzani’s appeal.

The identities of the parties of the case in question are censored, and the decision is published as Ploni (i.e. the Israel equivalent of John Doe or A. N. Other) against the Company (in process of disbanding), so it appears that the employer company is in the process of being dismantled. We therefore suspect that the inventor is unlikely to receive much in the way of compensation.


Voyager, It’s a Decision Jim, But Not as We Know It

August 17, 2014

voyager

Accel Telecom Ltd. filed Israel Trademark Application Number 251612 for Voyager”.

The mark was filed for the following goods: Fixed car phones and connected smart car phones; all included in class 9, and for telecommunication services, namely, providing electronic telecommunication connections, namely, providing voice and data wireless communications connections to enable users to transmit, reproduce, receive, access, search, index and retrieve data namely, images, sounds, text, movies and animations between mobile communication devices and computer communication networks, the Internet, information services networks and data networks; Telecommunication services, namely, telecommunication access services, communication by means of mobile phones, cellular telephone communication, mobile telephone services; all included in class 38.

The mark was accepted on 26 February 2012 and an opposition was filed by Plantronix Inc. on 28 May 2013,

On 27 March 2014 the list of goods was changed to Electronic apparatus, namely communication apparatus, telephones, mobiles, modems, and routers for communication apparatus; all included in class 9.

Somewhat confusingly, the decision states that a decision issued on 9 December 2014. At the time of writing, we consider this date that is in nearly four months time, a little suspect. In that decision, the Patent Office refused to allow the mark to coexist with Plantronics trademark 255989 which is an identical word mark. Our write up of that decision, by Ms Shoshani Caspi, may be found here.

Beyond the requirements of the Law, Ms Shoshani Caspi gave the parties an opportunity to provide evidence for allowing a coexistence agreement, provided the evidence would be submitted at least 30 days before a hearing on the issue.

On 19 December 2013 the parties informed the Israel Patent and Trademark Office that they did, indeed, desire to submit such evidence, but failed to do so. Despite this, a hearing was scheduled for 5 March 2014. During that hearing an agreement was reached that was acceptable to the parties and to the patent office.

However, on 22 June 2014, the parties merely submitted legal arguments without addressing the issue of confusing similarity.

Citing section 30 of the Trademark Ordinance, Ms Shoshani Caspi noted that in extreme circumstances, the Commissioner could allow two mark owners to use the same mark for the same good, and referenced a number of relevant decisions.

The parties argued that each was using the mark for different goods, sold to different customers via different channels and consequently there was not, in fact, any likelihood of confusion.

In this case, Ms Caspi could not accept the argument since the general case, as stated in section 11(9) is that confusingly similar marks cannot be allowed, and in this case the two marks are identical word marks for the same word “Voyager”.

One mark lists the foods as car phones and smart phones in vehicles, and the other as telecommunication equipment, such as earphones, computers and telephony communication equipment, adapters and battery rechargers, so both marks cover car phones. Indeed, the mark in question also covers remote telephony equipment under Class 38.

Ms Shoshani Caspi rejected the argument that in practice, Accel makes car phones and Plantronix makes ear-phones, since she considers these goods complimentary and thus still confusing to the public as to the source thereof.

The parties argued that whereas allowing Aroma to be used by more than one vendor of coffee and cake, was confusing, the current situation was more similar to Great Shape and referred to the 2003 decision concerning marks 107479 and 105968. Ms Shoshani Caspi rejected this argument. She also rejected the argument that since the distribution channels were different, there was no likelihood of confusion as the same customer could conceivably purchase both products.

Citing the Eshel – Yotvata Eshel Supreme court decision (which quoted Friedman p. 431) , she went on to rule that as defender of the public interest she could not allow coexistence, and she referred the case back to the parties to submit evidence in the ongoing opposition.

Decision re Voyager coexistence, Accel Telecom vs. Plantronix, ruling by Y. Shoshani Caspi, 20 July 2014.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 279 other followers