Missing the bus

December 8, 2011

Omnibus claims laconically claim the invention as described in the specification and/or illustrated in the figures of a patent application, instead of reciting strctural detail or listing method steps.

Back in 2008, the then Israel Commissioner of Patents, Dr Meir Noam, banned independent omnibus claims as being unclear, see here. That was some five years after Dr Noam assumed office. He failed to  explain why their clarity had suddenly changed for the worst, or why he’d suddenly noticed.

The present Commissioner of Patents, Mr Assa Kling, has now issued a circular ruling (Circular 008/011) due to the inherent lack of clarity, omnibus claims will henceforth not be allowed, whether submitted in dependent or independent form.

COMMENT

He is, of course correct, but then again, they are no more unclear now than they were previously. We hope that this indicates that henceforth, dependent claims are going to be examined on their merits. We also wonder if there is any scope for Israel courts to enforce the “pith and marrow” of a patent, regardless of claim deficiencies.


Next Sittings for Israel Patent Attorney Qualification Examinations

December 7, 2011

A week ago, the Israel Patent Office informed us that henceforth dates of examinations would ONLY be published on the Official website. See here

As I pointed out at the time, since there is a limited number of qualified mentors and a limited number of candidates who have all registered as trainees and so are known to the Israel Patent Office, the work involved in informing potential examination candidates is minimal. Furthermore, the little community of IP practitioners in Israel generally subscribe to the contact list of the Israel Patent Office and so simply informing the contact list would be fairly trivial, and, I suspect easier than updating the website.

I am not sure which personnel at the Israel Patent Office follow my blog, but it would be nice to think that my comments were heeded. That as may be, we are delighted to inform readers that the Israel Patent Office has recanted and have notified the mailing list.

the details are also available on the website and can be found  here

For those candidates who have problems with Hebrew legalese, in summary:

The oral exam will take place on Sunday 26 February 2012 and on Tuesday 28 February 2012, and candidates should keep both days free.

The written exam will take place in 19 February 2012 for those candidates wishing to display their skills at drafting chemistry or life science type applications. The exam that tests ability to draft mechanical, electronic and computer science type applications  will take place on Tuesday 21 February 2012.

Candidates should register a month earlier, i.e. by 19 January 2012 using this form

There is a minor mistake regarding the fee to be paid. Never mind. Several questions remain open. for example, some practitioners, such as myself, draft in both the predictable and unpredictable arts. Can such candidates sit both written papers? Can they register to both, look at the paper on the 19th and decide not to attempt it, but to come back two days later?

We also wait with bated breath to see if the examination committee for the oral exams will include ‘not more than one patent attorney’ as required by Law.

 


Is the Israel Patent Office ready to become an International Search Authority for PCT applications?

December 5, 2011

Back in 2010, WIPO voted to allow the Israel Patent Office to become an International search Authority. Since then, the Israel Patent Office has provided International Search Report (ISR) style searches for new applications first filed in Israel where applicant declares an interest in filing abroad.

Additionally, regular examinations are now provided in IPEA style.

In 2012, WIPO and the Israel Patent Office was decide if the IPO is ready to become an ISA. Depending on the cost and quality of a Blue & White search, patent attorneys in eligible jurisdictions (just Israel? Israel and Micronesia? elsewhere?) will advise applicants accordingly. Is the Israel Patent Office ready?


Israel Patent Attorney Qualifying Exams

November 29, 2011

The Israel Patent Office has informed that henceforth, details of examination dates for candidate patent attorneys will only be published on the Official Patent Office website.

COMMENT

From a quick look at the register, I note that there are only about 173 licensed practitioners that have the three years’ post licensing experience to mentor trainees. Since the previous commissioner, Dr Meir Noam, required registration of trainees, the Israel Patent Office has contact details of potential candidates. The Israel Patent Office also has a mailing list that one can subscribe  to.

In consequence of the above three facts, it seems fairly trivial for the Israel Patent Office to effectively actively inform all mentors, candidates and their mailing list of exam sittings. It seems a pity to think that someone might miss a sitting through not avidly monitoring the website, whose links often don’t work properly, and whose layout keeps changing.

Although according to regulations, the Exams should take place three times a year, in practice, they occur just under twice a year.  There is frequently insufficient notice. This development favors the bigger firms with many trainees, who can more easily see what’s happening. It discriminates against the hardy perennials who keep failing and may not be monitoring the patent office website.

Being a good Samaritan, literally – living as I do in Samaria – I will endeavor to keep my readers informed!


Judy Dvora Simchi of the Trademark Department of the Israel Patent Office Passes Away

November 28, 2011

The Israel Patent Office has notified the profession that Yehudit (Judy) of th trademark department has passed away. The funeral was on Sunday in Jerusalem, and the family will be observing the seven-day mourning period in the family home in Maale Adumim.


What is required to obtain actual and not estimated costs in a Patent Opposition?

November 20, 2011

Oval Magofim LTD, represented by Mati Barzam, successfully opposed Israel patent application No. 165760 to Alberto Lodolo.

After requesting and receiving one extension to file a response and counter-claims, the applicant filed for a second extension and was refused, and the application was thus dismissed.

The opposer filed for costs, and claimed NIS 50,000, arguing that the legal costs incurred were NIS 35,763.60, to which should be added a further NIS 15,000 for direct costs to the opposer who had to use their own staff to prepare evidence for the Statement of Case.

The lawyer’s invoices were appended to the request for costs, as was an affidavit from the CEO of the opposer who claimed that he or another worker had spent 100 hours in getting material together and in reviewing the opposition statement.

In ruling, Ms Y. Shoshani Caspi considered lawyer’s invoices labeled ‘for patent work’ insufficiently detailed to be clearly linked to this specific case and to explain how the sums reached were justified. Furthermore, the affidavit was also considered insufficiently detailed. One specific point Ms Y. Shoshani Caspi queried was that the CEO detailed reviewing the statement of case. Ms Y. Shoshani Caspi considered this as an additional safeguard but not strictly neccessary. She rejected the actual costs and estimated that NIS 15,000 were appropriate for the amount of work performed.

Costs in opposition to IL 165760 to Alberto Lodolo, opposed by Oval Magofim LTD., 19 September 2011.

COMMENT

Without seeing how much material was filed, it is difficult to estimate how much work went into it, but at a reasonable  IP lawyer’s rate of NIS 1000 an hour, one can assume that the cost of filing an opposition, which requires analyzing the application, reviewing prior art and writing an opposition will take time.

I suspect that the patent office simply weighs the material submitted, and am not sure that the estimated costs are fairer than the requested costs.  That said, the patent office is in the best position to directly compare different cases.

 


How many lawyers does it take to cross examine a witness?

November 20, 2011

This isn’t a joke. Rafa Laboratories LTD. opposed patent number 129724 to Takeda Chemical Industries.

The then Deputy Commissioner allowed the applicant to cross-examine someone in Slovenia at the opposer’s expense.

The applicant, represented by S. T. Colb, presented the opposer with an itemized bill for NIS 76,449.70, for first class flights for two attorneys from Israel, Takeda’s Head of IP from the UK, and a further representative from Japan. In addition to the four first class tickets, the applicant incurred three night’s stay in Ljubljana and hired the services of a local lawyer.

The opposer thought that three representatives was quite adequate, and that they could fly tourist class. They considered both the Japanese representative and the local lawyer to be unnecessary, also the first night in Ljubljana, which was a full day before the evidence taking, to be excessive. They redid the maths assuming that business class travel was twice as expensive as tourist class, and paid NIS 25,398.41.

In response, Colb argued that the lawyers always travels first class and the first day was required to hold a meeting between the various lawyers, and doing this in Ljubljana was the cheapest option.

The present decision examines the claims of both sides and rules on what are reasonable costs.

The Decision

Ms Yaara Caspi Shoshani considers it the prerogative of the applicant to decide how many lawyers to send and whether the best person is to come from Japan or elsewhere, so found four representatives acceptable. Furthermore, she had no problem with the applicant engaging a local attorney as the examination had to be performed in accordance with local civil procedure. However, regardless of whether the attorneys in question generally travel business or tourist class, she did not see why the opposer should pay for the luxury of business class. As to the first night in the hotel, she accepted that meeting in Ljubljana was cost-effective for the applicant but did not see why the opposer should pay for the expenses incurred by the applicant in preliminary meetings.

She halved the fee asked for on behalf of the Japanese representative, added a taxi fare and a night in Paris for him (no direct flights), converted everything into New Israel Shekels at the exchange rate at the time of the hearing and came to the conclusion that a further NIS 29,935.35 was in order.

The main case-law she based her reasoning on, was Bagatz 891/05 Tnuva vs. Israel Department of trade and Industry,  P. D.  S(1) 600.

The Ruling: Costs re Takeda Chemical Industries vs. Rafa Laboratories Concerning Israel Patent No. 129724, 20 September 2011.

Comments

IL 129724 relates to crystaline structures of Indazole.

I would recomend any attorney having reason to go to Ljubliana to visit Bled. It’s stunningly beautiful and seems a pefect backdrop for a business picnic. I can understand why Rafa feel bled by this, but quite frankly the sums of money to be made if a commercially significant pharmaceutical patent is successfully opposed are very significant.

Unfortunately, when I went with wife and kids for a week’s self catering holiday in Slovenia, we went tourist class and I couldn’t write it off as a business expense. Still it’s nice to know that one day I may need to go there on IP related business.


A slew of interim judgements and other minor rulings

November 20, 2011

There have been a slew of minor judgements recently published by the Israel Patent Office. None are big headline decisions, but to the extent that the Israel Patent Office is consistent, they do indicate what is likely to happen in analogous circumstances, which is probably why they are published in the first place.

Currently, Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi is the only adjudicator at the Israel Patent Office who is issuing rulings, so understanding how she sees things, is of value for those engaged in contentious proceedings before her.

Finally, as this blog tries to be comprehensive concerning Israel IP developments, it seems that these should be covered like everything else.

The following articles are thus interim decisions reported in the interim, until something substantive happens.


Israel Commissioner Meets Representatives of the Professional Organizations

October 27, 2011

Following a practice initiated by his predecessor, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Assa Kling, met with representatives of the Israel Association of Patent Attorneys, the Israel Branch of the AIPPI, the IP group of the Israel Bar, the Licensing Executive Society (LES) and the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI) in a round table discussion.

Several issues were dealt with and minutes of the meeting  were made available by Adv. Tal Band, the head of the AIPPI. This reprot is based on those minutes.

Appropriately, the tragic and sudden loss  of the Head of the Trademark Department, the late Ms Nurit Maoz was the first issue raised. Her achievements were acknowledged and patience was requested from the profession for the invitable delays that have and will occur until the department is able to reorganize itself and move forward.

I discovered that the Israel Association of Patent Attorneys is no longer headed by Ms Michal Hackmey alone, but now has a co-chairperson, Ronny Shutrut. Despite being a member of good standing in the organization, I didn’t hear about this decision from the organization itself. His appointment doesn’t seem to have been an election. At the last general election, several of the large firms voted on behalf of all workers by proxy, despite there being nothing in the constitution to allow this, and despite those voting in absentia not knowing who would be standing for office. There was, however, a facade of democracy. this appointment seems to have been made without even directly informing the members, which is less than satisfactory.

Another unsatisfactory aspect of this is that both co-chairpeople work for the same firm. Funnily enough, the chairperson of the FICPI (Ina Pugasch) is a further employee of the Reinhold Cohn IP group.

We assume that RCIP, as Israel’s largest IP practice (excluding the patent office and TEVA) is big enough to take care of its interests. Since the Commissioner himself, worked there until his appointment earlier this year, I suspect that the firm is reasonably capable of getting his ear if necessary.

The question is whether the present set up serves the interests of practitioners not working for RCIP, including the very large number of sole-practitioners whose needs and perhaps that of their client base may be very different to that of the Reinhold Cohen group.

Ms Michal Hackmey did request that members submit issues to her, for raising at these important meetings. Unfortunately, however, her priorities in deciding which issues to raise, will invariably reflect her perspective and practice.  I raised two issues with her and asked them to be brought up. I requested that the current practice of examination of independent claims only be raised as it extends prosecution and incurs unneccessary expense to clients. I also raised the issue of apparent illegality of the committees that orally examine candidate patent attorneys.  The first issue was apparently not raised but the second issue was discussed, but after the furore raised in responses to this blog and the like, presumably could not be ignored.

If all the people representing the private sector at these round tables come from 2 or 3 large firms, does this promote the interests of the profession as a whole? Not sure.  We wonder, therefore, whether the roundtable really serves its purpose to provide a channel of communication between the profession (as a whole), and the Patent Office.

One interesting insight was that the Commissioner of Patents noted that various issues including amending the law regarding examining patent attorneys was not within his bailiwick and he had no authority in such matters. We note that this more humble approach contrasts to that taken by his predecessor, who sometimes exceeded his authority when trying to straighten out archaic practices. Substantively, if not formally, Dr Noam’s reforms were generally both correct and filled needs, despite the rap he took from the Knesset committee for exceeding his authority and ignoring the letter of the law.

It seems from the sentiments reported in the summary of this first round table, that Commissioner Kling will be conservative in how he pursues his reforms.


Israel Patent Office denies authority to retroactively restore the priority period for design registration

October 16, 2011

If an Israel design application is filed within six months of an identical application filed abroad in a Paris Convention country, the Israel application is entitled to the effective filing date of the foreign application.

In Design Application No. 51361 to Serti, the application was filed more than six months after the corresponding foreign application was filed and the applicant petitioned for a retroactive extension of time. Yaara Shoshani Kaspi, the adjudicator at the Israel Patent Office refused the request ruling that the Israel Patent Office had no authority to consider such requests. Consequently, she didn’t relate to the grounds brought.

COMMENT

Shoshani Kaspi is correct. In this instance, there is no indication what the design is, whether the attorney was at fault for missing the date, or if there was an oversight due to something attributable to an Act of God, like an earthquake, or something more mundane like technology failure. Was this a last-minute mistake wrongly assuming the Israel Patent Office was closed on a Sunday, or something similar?

There is no indication what the design in question is, so it is not clear if all is lost or whether the design could be protected by copyright, trademark law or unjust enrichment.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 103 other followers