Waters of Eden – Nature’s Champagne

May 25, 2015

Mei Eden

Mei Eden (Waters of Eden) is a mineral water bottler and distributor. Their product is sold in blue tinted plastic bottles. Notably, at the time, the company die not sell sparkling mineral water, only still mineral water.

Mei Eden advertised their product as Nature’s Champagne. The Comite Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne (CIVC) which represents the wine manufacturers in the Champagne region of France, who perform a second fermentation of their wines in the bottle to produce a sparkling wine, have a geographical appellation. Only wine from that region may be called Champagne.

The Comite Interprofessionnel sued Mei Eden on grounds of Infringement of their Geographical Appellation of Origin, Unjust Enrichment, the TRIPS Amendment to Israel’s IP Laws 1999 and Commerce relates torts 1999.

In an erudite 52 page ruling Judge Ginat reviewed Israel trademark cases, TRIPS legislation, Perrier related decisions from Germany, and UK rulings by well respected IP Judges Arnold and Laddie.

I can’t be bothered to reproduce the whole case here. I will confine myself to two quotes:

“The necessary elements for a claim in passing off were restated by the House of Lords in Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] RPC 341 as follows:

the claimant’s goods or services have acquired goodwill in the market and are known by some distinguishing name, mark or other indication;
there is a misrepresentation by the defendant (whether or not intentional) leading or likely to lead the public to believe that goods or services offered by the defendant are goods or services of the claimant; and
the claimant has suffered or is likely to suffer damage as a result of the erroneous belief engendered by the defendant’s misrepresentation”

As noted above, both of these points were well explained by Laddie J in Irvine, in particular in the following passages:

“First, it is well established that, even in the absence of competition and hence diversion of sales, a misrepresentation leading to the belief that the defendant’s business is associated with the claimant’s is damaging to the claimant’s goodwill. Secondly, it is also well established that, if there is a misrepresentation which erodes the distinctiveness of the indication in question, then that is damage for the purposes of a claim in passing off.”

Expressed in these terms, the purpose of a passing-off action is to vindicate the claimant’s exclusive right to goodwill and to protect it against damage. When a defendant sells his inferior goods in substitution for the claimant’s, there is no difficulty in a court finding that there is passing off. The substitution damages the goodwill and therefore the value of it to the claimant. The passing-off action is brought to protect the claimant’s property. But goodwill will be protected even if there is no immediate damage in the above sense. For example, it has long been recognised that a defendant cannot avoid a finding of passing off by showing that his goods or services are of as good or better quality than the claimant’s. In such a case, although the defendant may not damage the goodwill as such, what he does is damage the value of the goodwill to the claimant because, instead of benefiting from exclusive rights to his property, the latter now finds that someone else is squatting on it. It is for the owner of goodwill to maintain, raise or lower the quality of his reputation or to decide who, if anyone, can use it alongside him. The ability to do that is compromised if another can use the reputation or goodwill without his permission and as he likes.”

In his ruling, Judge Gideon Ginat issued an injunction against Mei Eden using the term Champagne to describe their water, fined the water bottler 400,000 Shekels and awarded a further 200,000 Shekels in legal fees.

02-22286-33 Comite Interprofessionnel vs. Mei Eden LTD et al. Judge Gidon Ginat, 19 May 2015

COMMENT
This decision issues as WIPO members are hammering out the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement. See here for more details.
I have nothing against appellations of origin per se being taken seriously. However, this specific case was filed well after the events and long after the advertising Champagne campaign was initiated. Once a complaint was made the defendant stopped using the slogan. Arguably therefore, there were adequate grounds to throw the case out. I can, however, see grounds for issuing an injunction to prevent Mei Eden describing their product as Nature’s Champagne.

Damages? Unjust enrichment? Not convinced.

Unlike some Israeli sparkling wines which are as good as the French ones, mineral water, no matter how good, is not confusingly similar to Champagne wine, regardless of how bad. Mei Eden is not a sparkling water nor is it sold in glass bottles like Perrier. It cannot be compared to Babycham which was a cider that could allegedly be confused with Champagne by occasional Champagne drinkers or by the inebriated.

I don’t think that Laddie’s comments regarding an alleged misrepresentation leading to the belief that the defendant’s business is associated with the claimant’s is damaging to the claimant’s goodwill are in anyway relevant to this case.

I don’t find the argument of “passing off’ convincing. I don’t see a possibility of customer confusion. I can accept that European trademark practice would consider this type of usage ‘dilution’ and would forbid it. I can therefore see a legitimacy in the Comite Interprofessionnel suing for an injunction, and obtaining their costs. However, I don’t see a justification for this rather large fine. At worse, Mei Eden promoted their water using this Nature’s Champagne campaign. Arguably they increased Mei Eden’s market share of the mineral water market and maybe even increased mineral water consumption, but I seriously doubt it was at the expense of Champagne sales. I just don’t buy this.
The basis of the costs ruling was statutory damage and the damages awarded were “estimated” after weighing up all the considerations. I suspect that this sum will be appealed.

Peckham Spring

Readers are referred to “Mother Nature’s Son” the 1992 Christmas Special of Only Fools And Horses, which is perhaps the most iconic episode ever, and one of the funniest programs ever aired by the BBC, where the Trotters successfully market Peckham Spring Water.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/onlyfools/christmas/1992.shtml


IL 142809 to Pharmacia Successfully Opposed by Teva Pharmaceuticals

March 18, 2015

R&R          R&R2

IL 142809 to Pharmacia AB was submitted on 25 April 2001 as a national phase entry of PCT/SE/99/02052 “NEW CONTROLLED RELEASE BEAD, A METHOD OF PRODUCING THE SAME AND MULTIPLE UNIT FORMULATION COMPRISING IT”. This published as WO 0027364 on 11 November 1999. The application claims priority from another PCT application filed a year earlier.
On allowance in 2006, the patent published for opposition purposes and on 18 May 2006 Teva filed an Opposition, submitting a detailed statement of case on 18 October 2006. On 12 march 2007 Pharmacia filed a counter-statement. Both sides submitted evidence, held a hearing before then Deputy Commissioner Noah Shalev Shmulovich and then filed their summaries.

As per regulation 202a, the current commissioner, Asa Kling ruled on the opposition based on the material of record.

The application is directed to a bead with controlled release of active ingredients, a method of manufacture and a multi-part formulation that includes the active ingredients. Essentially, the bead comprises a multilayer structure that includes a soluble core covered with non-soluble coatings, and the patent has 23 claims, two of which are independent.

Claim 1 is as follows:

 A controlled release bead comprising:
A core unit of a substantially water-soluble or water-swellable inert material;
A first layer on the core unit of a substantially water-insoluble polymer;
A second layer covering the first layer and containing an active ingredient; and
A third layer of polymer on the second layer effective for controlled release of the active ingredient,
Wherein said first layer is adapted to control water penetration into the core.

Claims 2-7 recite the various lawyers and their formulations and thicknesses. Claim 8 is a Markush claim for various active ingredients. Claims 9and 10 claim different forms of the active ingredient. Claim 10 claims use in vitro. Claims 11-14 claim different materials for the first three coatings. Claim 15 provides dimensions for the core and claims 16 and 17 claim multidose structures.

Claim 18 recites a corresponding method as follows:

 A method of producing a controlled release bead, which method comprises the steps of:
providing a core unit of a substantially water-soluble or water swellable material;
applying a first layer of a substantially water-insoluble polymer to said core;
applying onto said first layer, a second layer comprising an active ingredient and optionally a polymer binder; and
applying onto said second layer, a third polymer layer effective for controlled release of the active ingredient;
Wherein the amount of material in said first is selected to provide a layer thickness that permits control of water penetration into the core.

Claims 19, 21 and 23 claim use of the bead for a treatment for various diseases and claims `19 and 21 claim the active ingredient as tolderene or a salt thereof.

Grounds for Opposition
The opposition was based on lack of inventive step (obviousness) under section 5 of the Israel Patent Law 1967. In addition, Teva claimed that some of the claims lack utility contrary to Section 3, that some of the claims lack support from the specification in contravention to Section 13 and the Application is laconic and contravenes Section 12.
Pharmacia argued that claiming that the specification was laconic was an inadmissible widening of the Statement of Case, but the Commissioner, Asa Kling felt that the alleged inadequacy of the specification was inherent in the Statement of Case and that Pharmacia related to the issue so he considered it admissible.
As to inventive step, the Commissioner explained that if at the time of filing, the claimed invention was a simple extrapolation that could be considered as a simple development within the field and allowing a patent for it would prevent progress, it would be incorrect to allow a patent.
The Commissioner noted that both sides accepted that beads allowing controlled release of active ingredients that comprised a miscible or non-miscible core, a sealcoat, layers of active ingredients and additional layers were known at the filing date. The sealcoat serves to protect the active ingredient from reaction with the core and may be water impervious or slightly pervious. In the present invention such water penetration was controlled but in the prior art it was less controlled.

Not that kind of seal coat

Not that kind of seal coat

The present invention differs from the prior art in two ways: (i) the sealcoat is miscible in the prior art but is immiscible in the present invention, and (ii) the seal coat of the present invention is rather thicker than usual, but the thickness is not mentioned in the claim-set.

Teva argued that since the core in this case is impervious the sealcoat is superfluous and non-functional and there is no effective difference from the core of the present invention and that of the prior art.

Teva argued that in the priority document this was stated explicitly:

“Each bead comprises (i) a core unit of a water-soluble, water-swellable or water-insoluble inert material (having a size of about 0.05 to 2 about 2 mm), such as e.g. a sucrose sphere; (ii) a first layer on the core of a substantially water-insoluble (often hydrophilic) polymer (this layer may be omitted in the case of an insoluble core, such as e.g. of silicon dioxide), (iii) a second layer of a water-soluble polymer having an active ingredient dissolved or dispersed therein, and (iv) a third polymer layer effective for controlled release of the active ingredient (e.g. a water-insoluble polymer in combination with a water-soluble polymer)”. (WO0012069 page 6 line 33 to page 7 line 6). This point was also clear from US 6,770,295 to the same applicants.

The Applicant countered that the opposer’s explanation of the phrase “control water penetration into the core” was a misrepresentation and the correct explanation is found on page 2 lines 23-25 of the Application and only rates to beads wherein the water penetration to the core is impeded in a controlled manner and excludes beads where the core is protected by an impervious layer. The Applicant argued that the claim of lack of inventive step was based on this wrong interpretation.  In contradistinction to immiscible cores of the prior art in the present invention the core is miscible and is protected by a partial barrier sealcoat which allows controlled release.
The applicant could not explain the working of the sealcoat and how it inhibited release of the active ingredient but argued that the phenomenon exists and this is sufficient for both enablement and inventive step.
It seems therefore, that the key question is whether an immiscible core or a miscible core protected by an immiscible coating are equivalent or if a miscible core protected by an immiscible coating can be considered inventive over an immiscible core. Citing 345/87 Hughes Aircraft vs. State of Israel, it is accepted that a mere scintilla of invention is sufficient, and the question is whether this exists in the present case.

Utility
Teva argued that the utility was not demonstrated in contravention of Section 3 which allows patents for inventions that are new, useful, industrially applicable and non-obvious.
In oppositions, the onus is on the applicant to show utility. Citing 665/84 Sanofi vs, Unipharm the commissioner stated that the application as field has to provide a basis for utility and, if challenged, the Applicant has to prove utility during opposition proceedings. IN enforcement and cancellation proceedings the burden of proof switches and the challenger has to show a lack of utility. Consequently, the Commissioner ruled that without proof of usefulness a patent should not be granted.

According to the Specification, there are three advantages:

  • The claimed bead prevents the soluble core from serving as a reservoir of the active ingredient and extending the controlled release period
  • It reduces the likelihood of the core material releasing active ingredients and reduces the atmospheric pressure (specific vapour pressure?) and prevents the core from swelling
  • It reduces the initial phase during which there is no release of the active ingredient or only minimal release

According to the applicant these advantages transcend specific active ingredients.

The Opposer argued that these advantages are claimed for the specific active ingredient and for other non-specified active ingredients without any rationale or evidence.

Evidence
The evidence from each side consisted of expert opinions. Teva produced an expert opinion from Professor Golomb, and Pharmacia releid on expert opinions from Professor Wilson and from a Professor Walther who attempted to reproduce the experiments described in the application.
Professor Walther conducted a number of experiments to demonstrate that claimed in the first example for different active biological compounds. These, together with raw data were appended to Professor Walther’s affidavit at the Commissioner’s request.
There were differences between the raw data and the final conclusions with regard to what active species showed the desired effects and whether a heat treatment affected the results. The Commissioner felt that the discrepancies required explanation.
The Applicant claimed that Tolterodine exhibited the desired behavior, as did Reboxetine and cona, theopheylline and Carbamazepine. This was held sufficient to show that the behavior was a general phenomenon.
The tests related to a core with three coatings whereas the specification proposed a fourth optional coating. This, together with other discrepancies were considered to show light on the utility.
The thick initial layer did show slow release of the Tolterodine in a manner that was close to linear.
In the Application, after three hours some 70% of the active ingredient ws released, but in Dr Walther’s corroborative experiments, after this time lapse, only 43% of the active ingredient had been released.
When comparing Professor Walther’s results with the experiments in the specification it appears that the applicant had problems repeating their own experiments. The problem seems to be that Professor Walther simplified the experimental design and still could not achieve meaningful results. He was able to show that a thicker coating impeded release of the active ingredient but not in a qualifiable and repeatable manner.
As far as Tolterodine, the preferred active ingredient was concerned, Professor Walther was unable to show a correlation between thickness and the rate of release and was unable to repeat the examples in the Application. The Commissioner considered the lack of repeatability an reproducibility as undermining the claimed utility and barring the issuance of a patent.
Adequacy of the Specification
Section 12 requires that the specification be adequate to allow persons of the art to implement the invention. The rationale for granting a patent is in exchange for teaching something useful and failure to teach something sufficiently to allow the teaching to be repeated is considered as invalidating the application: “The sufficiency of a specification is a question of fact and necessarily depends upon the nature of the invention and attributes of the skilled person.” ( Hollister [1993] R.P.C. 7 para. 10-14). In this instance, the purpose of the patent as specified in the priority document was to enable the controlled release of the active ingredient at a predetermined rate over the shelf life of the product.
“An important aspect of all controlled release dosage forms relates to the need for consistent drug release between dose units prepared in the same and/or in different production batches, and throughout the shelf-life of the finished product.”

The surelease polymer specified in the specification and used by Professor Walther in his experiments was supposed to provide repeatable and reproducible results:

“In one embodiment, the invention provides a commercial-scale process for manufacture of controlled-release dosage units. The process comprises co-formulating tolterodine or a tolterodine-related compound as an active drug and a pharmaceutically acceptable polymer-based release-controlling component. … more preferably substantially all of the polymer-based release-controlling component used in the process has an age, at time of dosage unit manufacture, which varies by not more than about 180 days, preferably not more than about 120 days, and more preferably not more than about 90 days.”

Professor Walther was unable to show this control. Under cross-examination he stated that:

“So what we know is that Surelease has lot to lot variability. So one batch of Surelease may perform slightly different from another batch of Surelease. That is an effect that the suppliers do know and understand and that is something that, as part of any formulation development, you would establish how robust a product is towards variability and providing sufficient specifications then on it.”

The problem is that this variable is not described in the specification, rendering the claimed invention not enabled.
The Commissioner ruled that the claimed invention does not have demonstrable superiority, lacked sufficient disclosure and enablement and that no inventive step was shown. Consequently the application was refused.

COMMENT
Active ingredients are released from the surface of solids. This is true for components that leach out and for components that are released when a carrier dissolves.
As particles shrink, the surface area to volume ratio increases and the rate of dissolution increases. Having a non-functioning core surrounded with a coating containing active ingredients is to ensure that the effective surface area remains more or less constant and thus the active ingredients are released at a constant rate.
The above explanation is obvious to anyone with a background of materials science and chemistry.
Drugs are more effective if the dosage is released slowly at a constant and predictable rate.
The present invention seems to be based on the premise that over time the core will absorb the active ingredient and that a coated absorbent core is better than a non-absorbent one.
The application is based on Tolterodine as an active material, but other pharmaceutical compounds may be expected to behave in the same way.
Of course, using the same binder and beads of constant diameter won’t give reproducible results if there are other significant variables. The problem here is that the Applicant’s own attempts to demonstrate the efficacy of the claimed invention failed. In such circumstances, the Commissioner couldn’t really have come to a different conclusion than that the application was deeply flawed as the person of the art selected by the applicant was unable to reproduce the results.

The previous Deputy Commissioner resigned four years ago. Obviously this was only one case of many that the current commissioner and his deputy or adjudicator had to rule on. Nevertheless, it seems to me intolerable that the parties should have to wait for four years for this ruling and one wonders why the previous deputy commissioner couldn’t have left less abruptly, and finished these pending cases.

 


February 11, 2015
Not that kind of niagara!

Not that kind of niagara!

Israel Patent 202468 to Sassy and Dalia Kazir issued on 1 March 2012 for a “toilet water supply system and method therefor”. The patentee paid the renewal fee in a timely manner but did not send proof of payment to the patent office and the patent lapsed.

Mr Katzir submitted an affidavit to the effect that within a week of receiving notification that the patent was not in effect, they requested reinstatement.

In the circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner ruled that the Section 60 requirements that the applicant did not intend the application to lapse and acted in a timely manner to reinstate were fulfilled and a ruling to reinstate will publish for opposition purposes.

COMMENT

It is, of course, ludicrous that one can pay renewals on-line at the Israel Patent Office, filling in the patent number, and then one has to print out the payment slip and send to the patent office so that it arrives there in a timely manner. This requirement results in regular rulings and wastes everyone’s time.


On Blood Pressure and Diabetes. Can citations post-dating the effective Filing Date be used as evidence of what was known at the time of filing?

February 10, 2015

 

blood pressure

Israel Patent Application No. 140665 to Novartis relates to preparations including Valsartan and Amlodipine for treating high blood pressure and diabetes. The application is a national phase of PCT/EP/1999/004842 and claims priority from an earlier US patent application.

The patent was allowed and published for opposition purposes on 23 December 2012 and is being opposed by both Teva Pharmaceuticals LTD. and by Unipharm LTD.

The Opposers submitted an expert opinion from a Professor Chimlichman to the effect that the combination was known from various publications and his treatment of hyper-tension and thus were lacking novelty at the priority date.

On response to evidence by the Applicant, the Opposers submitted a second opinion in which he relied on two references that were published after the priority date to determine novelty and inventiveness at the time of the priority date. Since these publications were not prior art, the Applicant requested that they were deleted from the opinion and espunged from the record.

Professor Chimlichman claimed that his treatment before the priority date was supported by GYH Lip et al., “The `Birmingham Hypertension Square` for the Optimum Choice of Add-in Drugs in the Management of Resistant Hypertension”, Journal of Human Hypertension (1998) 12, 761-763. Whilst the publication itself was certainly published after the priority date, it relates to clinical tests using the combination of the two drugs and must have been written prior to being published and describes what the authors knew prior to the priority date.

Furthermore, a response to Lip et al. subsequently published in the same journal provides additional evidence that the combinatory effect was known

Whilst accepting that the two publications were not themselves prior art, the opposers argued that they indicated the state of the art at the priority date and should be examined on their merits and not expunged from the record. Furthermore, the additional evidence was brought in response to statements my Professor Daloph, the expert witness of the Applicant.

The Opponents cited Unipharm vs. SmithKline Beechan and Orbotech vs Camtek to support their argument that the papers should be examined on their merits.

Ruling

Opposers are limited in what they can submit in response to the patentee’s evidence. They are not allowed to widen the statement of case. In this instance the additional evidence is supplementary evidence to support their main grounds of opposition, i.e. that the combination was known. There is no evidence given to explain why these papers weren’t submitted in the original round of evidence. The Opposer submits his evidence first and is entitled to respond to the counter-evidence. This gives him a procedural advantage and allowing the submission of additional evidence that could have been submitted in the first submission unfairly disadvantages the applicant.

Comment

Although not allowed to be added to the record, as it could have been submitted earlier, this ruling does seem to indicate that such post priority publications may indeed be used to show what was prior art.


US Supreme Court Overturns Federal Circuit’s Ruling Regarding Validity of Patent for Teva’s Copaxone

January 21, 2015

copaxone

Copaxone is a blockbuster drug based on the glatiramer acetate copolymer which was patented by Yeda (the Tech Transfer Company of the Weizman Institute) and licensed exclusively to Teva to manufacture.

On Tuesday 20 January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed an appeals court ruling that invalidated Teva Pharmaceutical Industries patent on the blockbuster multiple-sclerosis drug Copaxone, giving the drug maker a new opportunity to forestall generic competition.

The claims specify a particular molecular weight range but do not specify what method was used to measure the molecular weight. Sandoz argued that this is a fatal flaw and the claims are indefinite under §112. The District Court found for Teva, and was convinced by Teva’s argument that the claim clearly meant the “peak average molecular weight”, and not either of the two alternatives of “number average molecular weight” or “weight average molecular weight”.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit held to the contrary and found the patent invalid for indefiniteness. In reaching this conclusion, the Federal Circuit reviewed de novo all aspects of the District Court’s claim construction, including the District Court’s determination of subsidiary facts. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether that was permissible, or whether the Federal Circuit had impermissibly set aside the District Court’s findings of fact without the requisite finding of clear error on the part of the District Court (in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6), for what it is worth). The Supreme Court of the USA accepted TEVA’s appeal that found that the Federal Circuit had indeed impermissibly conducted a de novo factual review. So the Federal Circuit’s decision was vacated and the case remanded.

The Supreme Court Decision ruling was made by seven judges with two dissenting. Justice Breyer gave the Opinion with Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan affirming. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion which Justice Alito concurred with. According the majority opinion the Federal Circuit had indeed impermissibly conducted a de novo factual review. So the Federal Circuit’s decision was vacated and the case remanded. In the dissenting view, the opinion was that the Federal Circuit had not overturned findings of fact, but had instead formed a different conclusion of law as to the claim construction. Therefore, there had been no breach of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The case has been referred back to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

COMMENT

The ruling will help TEVA prevent generic competitors from entering the Copaxone market until the patent expires in September. There seems to be a power struggle going on in the US court system with the Supreme Court reprimanding the Federal Circuit for assuming powers that are not rightfully theirs.


Nos

January 19, 2015

NOS

A Turkish company called GÜNEYSI IÇ VE DIS TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI filed an International Trademark Application as shown, for chemical preparations for medical purposes, chemico-pharmaceutical preparations, dietetic foods adapted for medical purposes, medical preparations for slimming purposes, food for babies, material for stopping teeth, dental wax; disinfectants; preparations for destroying noxious plants, materials for dressings, preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, air freshening preparations, antiseptics – in class 5; Meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; beans, preserved, soups, preparations for making bouillon, olives, preserved, milk and milk products, butter, edible oils and fats, preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables, nuts, prepared, peanut butter, tahini (sesame seed paste), eggs and powdered eggs, non-medical foods use for supplementary purposes (including pollens, proteins, carbonate), potato chips in class 29; Coffee, cocoa, coffee substitutes, coffee or cocoa based beverages, chocolate based beverages, macaroni, ravioli, vermicelli, pastry and bakery products, desserts, honey, royal jelly, propolis (bee gum), condiments for foodstuff, yeasts, baking powder, natural substances for improving shape and color of bread and retarding its period of getting stale, all kinds of flour, semolina, corn starch, crystal sugar, cubed sugar, powdered sugar, tea, ice tea, confectionery, chocolates, biscuits, crackers; waffles, chewing gums, ice creams, edible ice, salt, grain (cereals) and products made from cereal, treacle in class 30 and Beers, preparations for making beer, mineral waters, spring waters, table water, soda waters, tonic waters, vegetable and fruit juices, their concentrations and extracts, beverages in class 32.

The mark received Israel Trademark Number 251385 and during the three-month period “Holley Performance Products, Inc” opposed the mark in Israel, and the Israel Patent Office informed the International Madrid Mechanism. Since Applicant did not respond to the Opposition, the mark has been canceled.

COMMENT

I suspect that with the mark filed for an enormous range of goods it is more than likely that the mark and Holley Performance could have hammered out a coexistence agreement.


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.

 

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 511 other followers