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!


JMB, Factor & Co Hosts Seminar on Medical Device and Life Sciences Patent Protection, Reimbursement and FDA Approval

November 8, 2011


This afternoon, JMB, Factor & Co. held a seminar on patenting medical device patents. I spoke about using FDA approval as a back door method of enforcing therapeutic patents in the US. My colleague Dr Moshe Tritel spoke about obtaining effective patent protection for gene sequences and pharmaceutical molecules and Dr Irv Treitel gave a wide-ranging presentation on various aspects of protecting medical devices, including the changes resulting from the new America Invents legislation, whether or not to conduct searches and the advantages of design patent protection, continuations and continuations in part.

Each of the patent related talks was kept to 10 minutes, so the three talks were focussed and fast-moving and took a mere 30 minutes in total.

Alan G. Minsk, a partner of Arnall Golden Gregory LLP in Atlanta, spoke about obtaining FDA approval and gave a very polished presentation that was peppered with anecdotes.

After a short break, Mr Amir Inbar of Mediclever spoke about Reimbursement, and then a couple of our clients, Mr Omer Carmel of Niti Surgical Solutions and Mr Avraham Harris of Sythezza Molecular Detection Israel, spoke about their practical experiences with the issue raised. The conference room was packed, and it seemed that the audience found the event informative. In contrast to what so often happens at IP events in Israel, my partner, Jeremy Ben David, who compered the seminar, managed to keep the event on schedule, and although the break was 5 minutes late, the event, with seven speakers, finished bang on time.

We acknowledge the help of the American-Israel Chamber of Commerce who co-sponsored the event.

 


Hebrew University Does Deal with General Motors giving them first right of refusal

October 5, 2011

Yissum, the technology transfer company of the Hebrew University, have done a deal with General Motors by which GM will sponsor applied research and have the first right of refusal for licensing any resulting inventions.  See press release here

Apparently, the first research project which was chosen as part of this research collaboration focuses on forecasting car sales. Researchers from the Hebrew University will develop accurate mathematical models that will take into account not only sales data, but also data on people who have decided against buying. The research will be led by Prof. Jacob Goldenberg, and Keren Hadad from the School of Business Administration, Marketing Department, at the Hebrew University.

We await to see how the results of this research can be published in an academic journal whilst retaining commercial rights, and if this can be patented.


Teva drops attempts to void Angiomax patents, but will supply |Medicines with the active ingredient

October 4, 2011

Israel’s Teva Pharmaceuticals has come to an agreement with the Medicines Company to settle their invalidation attempt against the Angiomax patents.

Under the agreement, Teva acknowledges the validity of the Angiomax patents and will only begin selling a generic version of the anti-clotting drug in 2019. However, Teva will supply Medicines with bivalirudin, the active ingredient in Angiomax.

The agreement is subject to review by the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice.

For more details, see http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9Q4QRE80.htm


Mylan and Sandoz Claim that their Generic Versions of Copaxone do not Infringe Teva’s Patents

September 8, 2011

Sometimes Israel’s Teva is wrongly considered as being only a generic drug player.

One of their patented pharmaceuticals is Copaxone, and Teva have filed suit against four companies – Novartis’ Sandoz unit, Mylan, Momenta Pharmaceuticals and India’s Natco Pharma – alleging infringement of patents for best-selling drug Copaxone.

The generics firms claim that Teva’s patent for Copaxone (glatiramer acetate) are invalid.

The US District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to issue a summary judgment in the case, requiring a trial to take place.

Meanwhile, some analysts suggest that the outcome of the court case could be unimportant because there are serious questions about the ability of the generics companies to prove that their products are equivalent to the branded Copaxone. Bioequivalence is difficult in this instance since Copaxone is a complicated molecule, with a poorly understood mechanism of action and no validated biomarkers for its efficacy.

In this regard, we note that Teva has repeatedly asked the US Food and Drug Administration (the FDA) to refuse to approve any abbreviated New Drug Application for a “purported generic version” of Copaxone, given the “inability to establish acceptable ‘sameness’ of the active ingredients” in the drug. To date, all the petitions have been rejected.

Consequently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may require a fairly extensive clinical trials programme for any generic version and the patent will anyway lapse in 2014.

A verdict in the case is not expected for several months.


Camtek wins Appeal Against Rudolph

August 23, 2011

 

 

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has cancelled a District Court ruling, following a jury decision, that Camtek infringed patents held by Rudolph, a German competitor (now August).

In the original ruling, Rudolph was awarded $8.7 million in damages and a permanent injunction against Camtek.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has found that the District Court erred in the construction of a key claim term and vacated the finding of infringement, the damages award and the permanent injunction.  The case has been remanded to the District Court for a limited trial based on the corrected claim construction.

For more details: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/camtek-wins-appeal-of-the-decision-in-rudolph-patent-infringement-case-128232213.html

Equitable Disclosure: Although I’ve had nothing to do with the case in question, I have performed some opinion work for Camtek, which is an Israeli company, and have also drafted and prosecuted a number of patents for Amitek, a sister company.

 

 

 


Viagra patent holds up

August 17, 2011

Teva’s challenge to the validity of Pfizer’s patent for Viagra was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith of Norfolk, Virginia, in a 110 page opinion.

 

“Teva has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that the patent is invalid,” wrote Smith who went on to state that “There is utterly no evidence” to support Teva’s claim that Pfizer intentionally withheld documents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. For more information see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-15/pfizer-wins-viagra-patent-infringement-case-against-teva-pharmaceuticals.html

 

 

 

 

 


Israel Patent Office Publishes Report on 2010 Activity

July 29, 2011

The Israel Patent Office has just published a report covering its activity in 2010.

The report, in Hebrew, is available from here: http://www.justice.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/C6ACFC67-FFF0-4D16-A8C3-DCFD0154D82E/0/2010.pdf

There are 45 pages of statistical data that contains few surprises, bound in a blue cover with a slightly corny lightbulb image.

Much of the comparative material, showing how the IPO compares with patent offices in other jurisdictions, and the number of patents filed per GDP and per population are found in the OECD report, on WIPO’s website, and in a paper I wrote together with Jeremy Ben David and which was published in WIPR a couple of months ago. Nevertheless, the report is comprehensive and compares favorably to the odd table or graph that the patent office has traditionally published.

There is some data on oppositions that has never been presented before and also comprehensive ranking tables showing where incoming filings originate.

The document carries two introductions, one from newly installed commissioner, Adv. Asa Kling, and one from his predecessor Dr Meir Noam. We weren’t surprised to see that each commissioner has lauded his predecessor / successor. However, since the document relates to the end of Dr Noam’s tenure, and before Adv. Kling took over as commissioner, this seems appropriate, if a little tiresome. Actually to be fair, 2010 was a good year for Dr Noam, whose achievements were many.

Of note, there is apparently on going consultation between the patent office and the Ministry of Justice regarding a Design Law to replace the 1924 Ordinance inherited from the British mandate, which is still in force.

We were surprised to learn that Brazil is a major filer or design registrations in Israel. Indeed 109 of the 423 design registrations originating from abroad came from Brazil, ahead of everywhere else including the US. Apparently, this is due almost exclusively to H Stern, a Brazilian jewelry firm with many outlets in Israel. Apart from jewelry, Israel design registrations were filed mostly for clothing, building materials, ornaments and food containers. In total, 1622 design applications were filed, which is, however, less than in any of the years 2005-2009.

There were a total of 8017 trademark applications filed into Israel in 2010, which is less than any of the years 2005-2009 and nearly 2500 less than 2008.

Protocol Madrid for the multi-national registration of trademarks came into force in Israel in September 2010, and in the last quarter of the year, some 463 filings were made into Israel via the protocol, and 37 international applications originating in Israel were filed.

In total, some 7266 patent applications were filed in Israel in 2010, which is up from 6780 in 2009, but still below the 2006-2008 levels which peaked, in 20o7, at 8064.  Most of these applications were Paris/PCT filings or divisional applications, claiming priority from earlier applications. The number of new applications first filed in Israel was 1044, which is the smallest number for a decade. It seems that more and more Israeli applicants are first filing in the US, either as regular applications, or are filing US provisional applications.

There was a lot of patents examined and allowed, but problems in publication delayed them issuing and probably contributed to the low number of oppositions filed, which, at 22, is up from 2009 when only 20 were filed, and from 2001 when 21 were filed, but much lower than the other years of this millennium.  We suspect however, that a number of cases examined in 2010 only published in 2011 and there will be some additional oppositions (indeed, I am handling one such case together with Adv Lewin from our office).

Some 41% of patent filings into Israel are computer/electronics related. 31% are chemistry (mostly pharmaceuticals), 17% biotech and 11% mechanical or telecommunications related. (I am not sure why telecommunications is related to mechanical and not to computer/electronics. I suspect it is an anomaly dating back to the mechanical telegraph or to the telephone made of two cups connected by a taut string). The Israel Patent Office receives a disproportionate amount of high-tech and pharmaceutical patent filings compared to those in traditional industries. This seems to reflect the fields where Israeli industries are perceived by competitors as being a threat.

In the end of 2009, Dr Noam initiated a fast track for ‘green’ patent applications. Some 22 attempts to have applications recognized as green were made during the year, and of these, 16 were accepted for the fast track, and 6 were refused. In the pie-chart summarizing this information, the 262 degree slice was coloured green, and the remaining 98 degrees was coloured orange. The significance of this colour was not apparent.Israel is a noticeable user of the PCT system in absolute terms, and is the largest user in terms of population. I suspect that this is because of the small local market, and Israel’s favorable trade relations with the US, Europe and the far East.

It seems that IP activity in Israel, both from local entities and from foreign applicants was down in 2010 in patents, designs and trademarks. This does not come as a surprise,  as we’ve felt the drop in work. It is little comfort to know that Israel weathered the recession better than many other economies, and that patent, design and trademark filings are down everywhere, except for China.

However, we note that the patent office has been aggressively attacking backlogs and examination pendencies are down as well.

We hope that the 2011 data will be more positive!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 103 other followers