POM’POTES

April 8, 2013

pompotes

Materne, a French company http://www.materne.com/ filed trademark application number 221487 for the word mark Pom’Potes in June 2009. The mark covers preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes; fruit puree, marmalades, fruits in syrup; milk and milk products, milk desserts; all included in class 29.  The mark was allowed in March 2011 and and at the end of June 2011, Pom Wonderful LLC, a US private company which sells beverages and fruit extracts http://www.pomwonderful.com/ filed an opposition.

After negotiation between the parties, Materne dropped the mark and the file, including the opposition proceedings were closed. Pom Wonderful filed a request for NIS 14,682.91 in costs, claiming that the withdrawal of the application was a concession of defeat. Materne argued that in the circumstances, this was exaggerated. The procedure had been simple and no evidence supporting the requests for costs was provided.

Pom Wonderful’s attorneys provided an invoice to substantiate the request.

Ms Shoshani-Caspi, the adjudicator of Intellectual Property at the patent office noted that  in addition to being provided late, the invoice lacked essential details such as the number of attorney hours and the attorney’s hourly rate. She noted, however, that neither side had shown inequitable behavior and ruled NIS 8000 in costs.

COMMENT

POM means apple in French, and apart from Israel’s growing French ex-patriot community, Algerian, Tunisian, Lebanese and Morrocan immigrants also tend to speak French.  I don’t, but remember the word from my French ‘O’ Level studies in England. I don’t think either firm deserves a monopoly on the word, but Pom-Pote is a compound word, reminiscent of compote, and, despite not seeing the statement of case,  I don’t think the opposition would have won on its merits. I have not seen the brand in Israel and suspect that this was why the mark was abandoned.

Pom Wonderful is actually a variety of pomegranate whose juice, the US company claims to treat erectile dysfunction. On May 22, 2012, Chief Administrative LawJudge Michael Chappell ruled after a hearing that the company’s claims were deceptive and issued a cease and desist order effective for 20 year  “The greater weight of the persuasive expert testimony demonstrates that there is insufficient competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate claims that the Pom products treat, prevent or reduce the risk of erectile dysfunction or that they are clinically proven to do so.” - In other words, the claims don’t stand up to scrutiny.

 


MOOI

April 8, 2013

 

Israel Trademark application number 226637 for the word mark MOOI, was filed by Dansher 1993 LTD., for cookies and cakes; all included in class 30.

There is a related graphic trademark mark application, 222501 for a line of production of chocolate chip cookies also in class 30. The graphic trademark application is reproduced below.

MOOI

When these marks were allowed and published for opposition purposes, Mewah Brands (S) Pte Ltd.  filed an opposition.

Mewah Brands manufactures various oils and margarines at a facility called Moi Foods in Malaysia.

Applicant requested that the opposer file a bond for NIS 30,000 to ensure that if the opposer fails in their opposition, that the applicant’s costs be met. (As Malaysia does not have diplomatic relations with Israel, this isn’t unreasonable).

The Adjudicator of Intellectual Property, Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi agreed to this request. The Opposer ignored it. The Applicant then requested that the opposition be considered abandoned, and this was ignored as well.

Ms Shoshani-Caspi then ruled the opposition abandoned. The Applicant requested costs and provided evidence of NIS 28,890 in actual costs, and Ms Shoshani Caspi accepted this evidence as sufficient and also ruled considered the costs reasonable. The marks are therefore registered and the opposer has 30 days from the 18th March 2013 to pay these costs or they will be linked to the cost of living and interest will accrue.

COMMENT

I suspect that eventually Israel and Malaysia will establish diplomatic relations, and then this award will be paid.

 


Israel Patent Attorney Exams

March 19, 2013

exam

The tri-annual patent attorney exams that occur just under every six months are coming up again and will take place in May 2013.

Those doing mechanical, computer and electronic related inventions will sit the written paper on 20 May 2013, and those doing biotechnology or chemistry will sit the written paper on 22 May 2013. the technical paper is to be sat in the morning, and the language proficiency paper in the afternoon.

The oral exams will take place on the 27th and 29th May 2013, and candidates are expected to be available on both dates, but nearer the time, they will be alerted regarding the date they are expected to actually take the exam.

Only those with an appropriate scientific or technical degree (or having no more than two outstanding courses to finish), and having done at least one year of training under a licensed Israel Patent Attorney  are entitled to sit the exam.

Registration is on the official form, by post or hand delivery.


Israel Patent Office Closed for Pesach

March 19, 2013

pesach toilet paperpesach-ocdtherapygroup

In the hassle and bustle of spring-cleaning, I am taking a break to inform readers that the Israel Patent Office is closed for Pesach (Passover) from Monday 25, 2013 (14th Nissan י”ד בניסן תשע”ג) until Tuesday 2, 2013  (כ”ב בניסן תשע”ג).

NOTE – the Israel Patent Office is OPEN on Palm Sunday. It is also open on 8th Day of Pesach as celebrated in the Diaspora, but not in Israel.

Any deadline (including Paris and PCT filing dates) that fall during the closure, are extended until Tuesday 2, 2013. Applicants filing PCT applications claiming priority from a US Provisional should be aware that the USPTO will consider these as not timely filed if the regular Paris deadline is missed, since the USPTO is open over Pesach  This is the case even if the USPTO is not a competent receiving office, such as where no applicant is a US citizen or a US registered company.


Opposition to LUXOIL trademark abandoned

February 18, 2013

Luxoil

Luxoil was filed by the Luxoil Company LTD., as a trademark in Class 3 for antistatics household; wax for polishing; soaps; preparations for soaking linen; liquid cosmetic preparation for hair; liquids for cleaning glasses, including windscreen; cosmetic preparations for animals; cosmetic preparations; cosmetic preparations for baths; washing-up liquids, except for the used for industrial and medical purposes; perfumery products; cologne; preparations for washing linen; preparations for mitigation of linen at washing; preparations for cleaning sewers; preparations for protection of a leather [polishing]; preparations for removal of a rust; preparations for deducing spots; preparations for cleaning; preparations for removal of paints; all included in class 3.

On the mark being allowed, a company called Otkrytoe Akstionerno filed an opposition, but didn’t file evidence. The opposition was dismissed and the mark allowed to stand. The Applicant requested legal fees of 7071 Euros, VAT and out-of-pocket expenses of 1005 Euros; the book-keeper of the legal representatives filing a statement. The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks agreed to award costs, particularly as the representative of Luxoil did not respond to the request for costs, but found the sums requested exorbitant and unsubstantiated. Consequently, only NIS 4500 in costs were awarded.


Israel Patent Office Closed on Tuesday 22 January 2013 for National Elections

January 20, 2013

בחירותThe Israel Patent Authority is going to be closed on Tuesday, 22 January 2013, because of the General Election.All deadlines falling on the 22 January 2013 get automatically extended by a day, so Paris Convention and PCT deadlines falling on 22 January 2013, may be made on Wednesday 23, January 2013.

COMMENT

For some reason I find difficult to fathom, it seems to be too much to expect the electorate to work and also to vote on the same day. I remember that in the UK, General Election Day was not a public holiday.

Apart from the Pirate Party (which is not expected to clear the electoral threshold), none of the parties have clear positions on intellectual property. It seems that the issue of national service for ultra-orthodox and minorities, and taxation policy are of more interest to the general public.

I suppose there are two good things that can be said for democracy:

1. The population receives the government it collectively chooses.

2. 4 or 5 years later, one gets a further opportunity to change the government.


Computerized Dating Service Not Patentable

January 10, 2013

People Playing Spin the Bottleyenta

Mordechai Teicher filed Israel patent application number IL 171773 for an “Apparatus and Method for Managing Social Games”. The patent seems to be a computerized version of Spin the Bottle, with a couple of twists in that whereas in Spin the Bottle, the paired participants go for a private grope in the broom cupboard, in the present invention some of the dependent claims recite the system including a video camera to convert the dating service into a reality TV show.

The independent claims of the equivalent US patent are as follows:

1. An apparatus for managing a series of social games for a plurality of subscribers, comprising: 
a first database containing a plurality of game assignments; 
a second database containing a personal wish list for each of the subscribers; 
a processor responsive to said second database for: 
i) picking at least one subscriber from the plurality of subscribers, and 
ii) assigning to each of said at least one subscriber a selected game assignment from said first database; and 
an input port for receiving from each of said at least one subscriber, after completion of said selected game assignment, an update to the respective personal wish list, to selectably affect said picking and said assigning with respect to a next social game in the series. 

12. An apparatus for picking two subscribers from a plurality of subscribers for an interpersonal couple game, comprising: 
a second database scoring, for each subscriber of the plurality, the subscriber’s level of interest in individual others from the plurality; and 
a processor responsive to said second database for calculating a mutual attraction for subscriber pair combinations, and making the picking in response to said mutual attraction of the two subscribers. 

21. A method for managing a game from a game series for a participant from a forum of subscribers, comprising: 
receiving a personal wish list from each of the subscribers, said wish list scoring each respective subscriber’s level of interest in other subscribers; 
picking another subscriber as a partner for said participant in accordance with the mutual scores of said participant and said partner in their respective wish lists; 
assigning matched game assignments to the participant and said partner; and 
after completion of the game, receiving from the participant and said partner an update to their respective wish lists, to selectably affect said picking toward a next game in the game series.

31. A method for managing games for a plurality of subscribers with respect to game assignments, comprising: 
receiving from each of said plurality a personal wish list scoring each subscriber’s level of interest in other subscribers and ranking said each subscriber’s level of interest in game assignments; 
picking two subscribers in accordance to their mutual scoring in their respective wish lists; and 
assigning to each of said two subscribers a matched game assignment in accordance to said ranking by said two subscribers. 

36. A method for operating user terminals by a first subscriber for participating in a game within a forum of subscribers, comprising: 
sending a personal wish list scoring the first subscriber’s level of interest in other subscribers from the forum and ranking the subscriber’s level of interest in game assignments; and 
receiving a game assignment with another subscriber, said game assignment being selected in response to said scoring and said ranking made by the first subscriber and said another subscriber. 

37. A system for managing games for a plurality of subscribers, comprising: 
a game generator including: 
i) a first database containing a plurality of game assignments, 
ii) a second database containing a personal wish list for each of said subscribers, and 
iii) a processor responsive to said second database for picking at least one subscriber from the plurality of subscribers and assigning to each of said at least one subscriber a selected game assignment from said first database; and 
a user terminal allocated to each of said at least one subscriber to communicate with said game generator for updating said personal wish list after completion of said selected game assignment.

40. A software product stored on a computer-readable medium to instruct a computer to: 
read a wish-list database scoring the level of interest of each subscriber of a forum in other subscribers from said forum; 
pick two subscribers in accordance with their mutual scoring; 
select two matched game assignments from an assignment database; 
assign to each of said two subscribers a game assignment from said two matched game assignments; and 
receive an update to said wish-list database after completion of said two matched game assignments. 

The claimed system included databases of participants, processors, input and output means and the usual computer paraphernalia. The application issued in the United States as US 7,305,398, with continuations  that also issued, as US 7,849,212 and US 7,769,699.

Following patent office guidelines, the Israel Examiner rejected the application as being addressed to non-patentable subject matter, in that the result claimed was not technological, and the method and system were generic and trivial. On appeal, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Assa Kling, reviewed the Israel court decisions and patent office rulings of his predecessors, the main decisions and guidelines in the US and Europe, and tried to explain what was considered technical or technological. The ruling is a little long and convoluted, but the bottom line is that there is no result in this case that can be considered technological, and the means of achieving the result wholly lack novelty and inventive step. Since the application was considered directed to non-patentable subject matter, the fact that patents had issued in the US was considered irrelevant, and granting modified allowance under Section 17c was not allowed. The rejection was upheld.

COMMENT

Although it is not easy to follow the Commissioner’s chain of thought, the 33 page ruling does show that he has researched the topic fully and is familiar with the Israel, US and European decisions and guidelines. It is also a good indication of the way the wind is blowing.

I think the decision was a correct one, but the case could have been analyzed in terms of novelty and inventive step without grappling with what is and is not technological. Simply doing what has been done in the past without a computer by a computer is not inventive. Either way, this ruling indicates how the Israel patent office is considering this type of patent application, and, unless someone appeals to the courts and the ruling is overturned, it is fairly clear that systems and processes that computerize new things will not be considered patentable in Israel unless there is something inventive in the methodology.

The intention of the term “technical” or “technological” is still not clearly defined. Then again, neither are the terms “obvious” or  ”inventive step”.


Israel Patent Office Closed Due to Weather, but Accepting Filings

January 10, 2013

snowmanIt has been snowing in Jerusalem, and in other high areas.  The examiners have apparently mostly gone home, but the poor security man is at his post. The Israel Patent and Trademark Office is open for new filings and other post.


Camtek Successfully Opposes Orbotech Patent for Image Analysis

January 6, 2013

Orbotechcamtek

Camtek and Orbotech are two Israeli companies making automated inspection systems for the microelectronics industry.

There appears to be a fair amount of bad blood between the two companies, and invariably when one receives a patent allowance in Israel, the other files oppositions.

In March 2001, Orbotech filed a patent application number IL 142028 into Israel. The application was a national phase entry of WO00/19372, titled “Pixel Coding and Processing Method” and had a priority date of 28 September 1998. The independent claim as filed reads as follows:

“A method of multi-level pixelization of images comprising: determining at least one edge between a first area and a second area in the image; dividing the image into pixels; assigning a first value to pixels completely in the first area; assigning a second value to pixels completely in the second area; and assigning a value to pixels through which the edge passes, said value being one of the first value, the second value or a different value.”


In June 2006, the patent was allowed and published for opposition purposes. Camtek filed an opposition claiming lack of novelty, obviousness, insufficient disclosure and lack of enablement.
MS Yaara Shoshani Caspi, an adjudicator at the patent office accepted that the claimed invention was obvious based on the teachings of:

  • US 5,148,495 “Line region Segmentation Method”
  • US 5,754,690 “Position Sensitive Detector based Image Conversation System Capable of Preserving Sub Pixel Information”
  • US 4,896,364 “Method of Detecting Boundary Structures in a Video Signal” and
  • US 4,873,577 “Edge Decomposition For the transmission of High Resolution Facsimile Images.”

The opposition was accepted and the applicant was ordered to pay costs of NIS 30,000 to the opposer.

COMMENTS

I think Ms Caspi Shoshani’s ruling as to obviousness of the main claim is reasonable. I note that she does not consider that all four cited patents are required to knock out the main claim.

There were, however, some other aspects of the ruling I was less happy about.

  1. There appears to be an assumption that if the independent claim is obvious, the patent should be rejected without substantially relating to the dependent claims. I reject this totally.
  2. the application was criticized as being confusing and difficult to understand, and without the affidavit of the expert witness, it was beyond the arbitrator to understand what the purpose of the invention was. I reviewed the application, and like many patents for image analysis, it is not easy subject matter. Nevertheless, I didn’t feel that the applicant was trying to obfusticate.
  3. The examples dealt with printed circuit boards but the applicant claimed image analysis in a much wider, context independent manner, without bringing support for so doing. The adjudicator criticized this. Now, I accept that a photograph of copper paths laid down on a dielectric substrate provides one of the easiest types of images to approximate as a binary image and to unambiguously determine the edges of. Nevertheless, the approach taken is clearly application independent, and I can’t see any reason for the applicants to have discussed and brought examples of printed text or other images.

At the end of the day, the adjudicator construed the main claim and compared to the prior art cited to find the approach obvious. She also correctly noted that by assigning edges with a value representing dark, representing light or representing another value, the claim covered all imaging algorithms and was thus too broad. I think the decision could reasonably have been left at that.

We note that although the PCT received a positive international search report, it appears that the application was rejected in Australia and not allowed anywhere else.

Finally, as the two sides were fighting the opposition over a 6 year period, with a hearing, etc., it seems that the NIS 30,000 in legal costs awarded was less than generous.

Israel Patent Office ruling concerning Opposition to IL 142028 to Orbotech by Camtek, adjudicated 9 December 2012, by Ms Shoshani Caspi


Israel Patent Office Publishes Tender for Examiners from Ethnic Minorities

January 2, 2013

Discrimination_thumbnail (1)

age_discriminationThe Israel Patent Office has published a tender for trainee examiners and examining department heads from ethnic minorities.
The placements are available for Arab, Druze and Circassian applicants.

COMMENT

This tender is in line with the policy of corrective discrimination in the civil service, where there is a percentage of jobs allotted to minority candidates.

The politically correct term is corrective preferential treatment, but I prefer the more accurate term ‘corrective discrimination’, as this is still discrimination regardless of the underlying intentions and politics.
I am not sure that I agree with the policy as I believe in a level playing field, but would prefer the best candidates to be chosen without regard of religion or gender. Certainly in the distant past, there has been a policy of friends recruiting friends in the patent office but I think it may be possible to screen candidates and to set aptitude tests that don’t reveal the name, religion of address of candidates. Another way of wording this tender, that doesn’t change the criteria one bit, is ‘Jews need not apply’, and I am not sure that this should be considered inoffensive and acceptable.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 191 other followers