Dr Ariel Wander filed an Israel Trademark Applicaiton No. 232520 for iClinic, shown above.
The trademark application is for ophthalmology services, aesthetical and cosmetic services, laser treatments to correct and improve vision, refractive surgery; all included in class 44. On the mark being allowed, a Ms Irit Becher filed an opposition. She failed to provide evidence and so the Commissioner of Patents, Assa Kling threw out the opposition, letting the mark stand.
Leave a Comment » | 
Israel, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Trademark | 
Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
Following a decision of 6 January 2013 not to allow TM Application Number 238745 “Teva Express” as a word mark, See here , but indicating that a stylized logo of the phrase could be registered, the applicant filed a request to allow the stylized logo.
The Deputy Commissioner, Ms Jaqueline Bracha, admonished the applicant for requesting that the decision be corrected instead of filing a request, and pointed out that it was wrong to allow the same request to be considered as being a word mark or a stylized logo at the applicant’s request, depending on how prosecution pans out. Nevertheless, she allowed the stylized logo to be registered.
Leave a Comment » | Israel, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Trademark, Teva, trademarks, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
The Israel branch of the Licensing Executive Society, LES Israel, is pleased to host LES member Neil Wilkof, who will speak on the topic:
Leave a Comment » | Academia, Israel, Israel Copyright, Israel IP, software Patents | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
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”.
Leave a Comment » | Intellectual Property, inventive step, Israel, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Patent trivia, patentable subject matter, Patents, Section 17c, section 3 | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
It 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.
Leave a Comment » | Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent Agency, Israel Patent Office | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
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:
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.
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
3 Comments | IPO, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Agency, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Patents | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
Israel Patent Application No. 179840 is a patent application for a mattress designed to reduce the probability of cot deaths. It was filed in Hebrew by a pair of inventors, Einat and Moshe Gabai who went on to prosecute their application through to allowance.
The invention relates to a standard crib dimension foam mattress featuring through mattress apertures to prevent carbon dioxide build up around baby’s nose and mouth, which applicants hypothesized could result in rebreathing of the carbon dioxide and asphyxiation. The mattress is covered by a fabric allowing air passage therethrough.
On publication, Aminach, a leading Israeli mattress manufacturer, engaged the services of S.T. Colb, Patent Attorneys and opposed the patent application, claiming lack of novelty, lack of inventive step (i.e. that the invention is obvious) and a lack of utility. Aminach also alleged that the Applicant had failed in their obligation to update the patent office regarding relevant known prior art during prosecution, since there was prior art cited against the corresponding US application that was not submitted to the Israel Patent Office.
In a plucky though perhaps foolhardy development, the inventors fought the opposition themselves, without professional representation. Nevertheless, they managed to show the differences between the claimed invention and the cited art and the Deputy Commissioner Jaqueline Bracha ruled that the claimed mattress was novel and inventive. Furthermore, the inventors managed to convince Ms Bracha that the failure to submit details of the prior art was not willful, and she was prepared to overlook this oversight. However, she was persuaded by a professional opinion submitted by Professor Sivan, a pediatrician, on behalf of the opposers, that the invention lacked utility, since the applicants did not submit any scientific evidence that it worked. Consequently, Ms Bracha refused the patent under Section 3 of the Law.
Professor Sivan argued that sudden infant death syndrome SIDS was not fully understood, but that there was evidence of a correlation between the phenomenon and mothers who smoked during pregnancy and parents who smoked near their babies. Clearly the invention does not address these factors.
The Opposer claimed costs of 141,268 NIS but argued that since the costs resulted from legal advice, the relevant papers were subject to attorney–client privilege. Ms Bracha was unimpressed by this argument, and awarded 5,597 NIS in legal expenses against receipts and 40,000 NIS (a little over $10,000) in legal fees.
COMMENT
As I understand the applicants are considering appealing this decision and I have been approached concerning providing an expert opinion on the relevant patent law, I am refraining from criticizing the substantive ruling at this time.
Regarding the argument of attorney–client privilege extending to legal costs, I think that Ms Bracha was correct not to take the requested fees into account, since the applicants are not able to challenge the sum without a breakdown.
One final comment, filing and prosecuting a patent using professional representation is not cheap and whether or not NIS 141,000 NIS is reasonable for opposing a patent, legal representation concerning responding to opposition proceedings are particularly expensive. Nevertheless, one wonders if MS Bracha’s decision would have been different if the applicants had been represented.
Israel Patent Office Ruling In Opposition by Aminach against IL 179840 to Gabai, 20 November 2012, by Deputy Commissioner Jaqueline Bracha.
2 Comments | Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Patent trivia, patentable subject matter, Patents | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
The 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.
Leave a Comment » | Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent Agency, Israel Patent Office | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
The fees for filing and prosecuting patents, designs and trademarks are generally index linked to the cost of living and there are twice yearly adjustments which are usually fairly trivial. The fees for renewing patent, design and trademark registrations are similarly adjusted.
In a Notice dated 3 December 2012, the Israel Patent Agency announced a radically different price regime for some patent related services. However, design and trademark related fees will only have the expected index linked adjustments.
The fee for filing a patent application which until January 1, 2013 stood at NIS 1025 (about $275 US) have gone up to NIS 2000 (about $540) which is a sharp increase of nearly 100%. However, companies having an annual turnover of less than NIS 10 Million (about 2.7 million dollars) who are prepared to sign a declaration to that effect, and also individual applicants – who do not need to declare anything – are entitled to pay a reduced filing fee of NIS 1200, which is actually fairly close to the filing fee prior to it being discounted as there is no longer a publication fee for first publication, since the data is made available on-line. It should, however, also be born in mind that the publication fee for allowed applications has also been cancelled.
Very sharp increases in extension fees and renewals fees have also been introduced. Each monthly extension fee for responding to an office action or for paying a renewal, etc. will now be NIS 200 (about $54), whereas until now, this has been NIS 64 (about $17).
Renewals have gone up considerably as well. Whereas the first renewal for years 1-6 from filing was NIS 157, and the second renewal for years 6-10 was NIS 320. These are now NIS 800 and NIS 1600. In other words, the first renewal has gone up by over 400%!
Expedited examination and oppositions are also more expensive.
The Dollar- Shekel exchange rate has also dropped, so the cost in dollars has gone up even more disproportionately.
COMMENT
A condition for the Israel Patent Agency becoming an International Search Authority for the PCT was that it would maintain a team of 100 examiners. Presumably this has increased running costs of the patent office. Not only do these examiners presumably receive salaries, but they also require office space, etc. Perhaps there has also been a perceived increase in value of an Israeli patent, both due to the Israel Patent Agency becoming an International Search Authority, and because of books like Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle, 2009 by Dan Senor and Saul Singer.
Sometimes high prices do not deter investments. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether these sharp increases have an effect on the number of patent applications filed in Israel and on whether or not they are maintained.
1 Comment | IPO, ISR, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Agency, Israel Patent Office, Patents | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
Leave a Comment » | Israel, LES, Licensing, software Patents, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
You are currently browsing the archives for the Israel category.
