Trademark Trolling? Proctor & Gamble’s Actipearls Mark Opposed

January 12, 2015

actipearls

The Proctor & Gamble Company submitted Israel trademark application No. 250720 “Actipearls”. The mark covers feminine hygiene and menstruation products, including sanitary napkins and tampons, panty-liners, internal absorbents and pads for feminine protection; all goods included in class 5. They are used as a deodorizing additive to Always products.

Super Medic (Medic Lite) LTD who apparently use the mark for toothpaste, opposed the mark. Proctor & Gamble have asked that Super Medic post a bond of 100,000 Shekels to cover costs should they lose their opposition.

The request for this sum was backed by the fact that in another proceeding, an expert witness for the defendant testified that Super Medic (Medic Lite) LTD is a straw company held for fighting legal battles only. The request related to an earlier decision concerning 243678 and was supported by an affidavit from a Ms Ben Naftali, a pre-article clerk (I suppose this is more interesting than photocopying and collating documents).

Super Medic (Medic Lite) LTD counter claimed that the timing of the bond request, which is after the filing of evidence by the opposer is indicative of inequitable behavior. The affidavit has been held by Applicants for over a year and only now is it being pulled out. Super Medic (Medic Lite) LTD also asserted that the request was not properly supported by an opinion regarding the likelihood of success, since the pre-article clerk was unqualified to opine on the subject. Super Medic consider that their chances of prevailing in this instance are high and therefore the request for bond should be rejected. Super Medic further noted that they had only recently deposited 400,000 NIS in the court’s coffers in another case where they were suing for 42,000,000 NIS. In that case they claimed that there was a ruling of over 8 million shekels in their favour. They further provided an accountant statement that their annual tax returns were regularly filed and taxes were paid, and a bank statement that they settled their debts. Finally, they filed an affidavit of the opposer to support their claim of liquidity.

Applicants countered that Super Medic has not yet lost a case and the financial status was based on an assumption of winning, and that anyway, the likelihood of success was only of relevance in the proportionality of the bond if it were to be considered excessive.

Ruling

The starting point is that limited companies initiating legal proceedings are required (if requested) to place a bond to cover expenses should they fail, see Section 353a of the company Law 199, and Supreme Appeals 10376/07 L.N. Engineering vs. Bank HaPoalim LTD, and 857/11 Beer Tuvia Municipality vs. Noris Development and Haulage LTD.

For a company to be exempt having to post a bond, the onus is on them to show financial resources or other reasons that might justify not requiring a bond. In this instance, Super Medic claims that such other reasons exist, i.e. a very high likelihood of success, proven liquidity and inequitable behaviour on the part of the Applicant.

Proctor & Gamble consider that Super Medic’s mark is not sufficiently close for there to be a case to answer to. Super Medic have submitted their evidence, but Proctor & Gamble are yet to do so. In the circumstances, Deputy Commissioner Ms Bracha considered it too early to ascertain the likelihood of success.

Ms Bracha rejected the argument that Super Medic are suffering loses from Proctor & Gamble’s use of the mark and therefore should not have to post a bond, noting that in another case Super Medic bankrupted an opposer.

As to the 8 million expected in the other case, Ms Bracha noted that there was no such ruling yet. Furthermore, she accepted P&G’s contention that the 400,000 Shekels bond in that case may have been a loan and does not indicate that Super Medic has resources. Documents provided by Super Medic did show other financial activity but did not indicate liquidity of a solid financial footing. Furthermore, their own witness had, in another case, indicated a lack of seizable assets.

The arguments of inequitable behaviour were also rejected.

Ms Bracha concluded that requiring a bond was reasonable in the circumstances as there was insufficient reason to deviate from the norm. Noting, however, that such bonds have to be reasonable, and in view of the fact that in a different pending case she had ruled that a bond of 20,000 Shekels was appropriate she ordered Super Medic to deposit a bond of 15000 Shekels to cover legal costs, if ruled against them within 30 days a s a prerequisite of continuing the proceeding. The Applicant will have two months to file their evidence from the payment of the bond.

Interim ruling on posting a bond in opposition to TM 250720 to Proctor & Gamble, opposer Super Medic, Ms Jacqueline Bracha, 21 December 2014.

Comment

Pearls are created by shellfish such as oysters to isolate and coat over natural irritants. It seems that Active Pearls is a trademark used by Fa’s Deo Stick Deodorant which is owned by Henkel. It is used by a company called Physioderm as a brand for high-performance skin cleanser with dirt-binding castor-oil wax pearls for the removal of heavy dirt, e.g. oil, soot, metallic dust and graphite. Dr Tim sells active pearls as an additive to aquariums.

There seem to be many women who object to the actipearls marketing exercise of Proctor & Gamble, and consider it misogynistic. They find the concept of artificially perfumed sanitary pads offensive and likely to increase risk of infection or late detection of same. One example is here .

Getting back on subject, if Super Medic is indeed a legal entity without assets, posting a bond seems reasonable. In general, there has to be some consequences of losing law suits and against filing frivolous law suits. If the US courts adopted this position, much of the problem of trolling would disappear.

On the other hand, the story of Naboth’s Vineyard, and indeed, that of Bat Sheva amply demonstrate the problem of power players riding roughshod over smaller parties. If a company like P&G should decide to use a trademark registered to a small company or in owned by the small company by virtue of the Common Law, the smaller parties should have access to the courts and shouldn’t have unnecessary barriers put in their way, such as having to pay inflated bonds.


Season’s Greetings

December 18, 2014

Factor santa wrong address


Orbotech Challenges Cost Ruling, but too Late

December 8, 2014

missed opportunity

Back on 9th November 2014, I reported that after finally ruling on the Camtek – Orbotech patent Opposition, the Israel Patent Office ruled very large costs to Adi Levit, mostly because he’d detailed his cost calculation and it was unchallenged by Orbotech who’d lost the case.

Camtek requested 302,895 Shekels costs (including VAT).  The request for costs were supported by an affidavit from Camtek’s IP manager Michael Lev. The sum includes legal fees of 288,687 Shekels to outside counsel, Adi Levit, 8208 Shekels to the witness Mr Golan, and 6000 Shekels for intermediate costs awarded. All cost requests were supported by documentary evidence such as invoices from outside counsel and salary slips from the witness. Orbotech, represented by Reuven Borchowski, did not counter the request for costs.

In her ruling, Ms Jacqueline Bracha reviewed the intermediate costs to see whether they were affected by the final decision and came to the conclusion that where she had ruled that the costs were incurred by Opposer unnecessarily, they should be discounted.  The costs awarded were 296,895 Shekels.

Apparently, on the day that the cost ruling issued, Orbotech requested that the ruling be canceled, arguing that because of industrial action in the courts, they were unable to respond on the last day as they had intended.

Camtek responded that they could have filed a notice of intent to challenge, the court strike was actually the day after, and a response could have been submitted despite the strike. They requested that Orbotech’s lawyer file an affidavit testifying to why he was unable to respond, and to be prepared to be cross-examined on it.

Ms Bracha decided that the ruling was given fairly and there was no reason to cancel it. The issue was not whether Reuven Borchovsky, attorney for Orbotech had intended filing a response, but whether there were counter-arguments on file when she made her ruling. As there weren’t, she was entitled to simply check the calculation submitted by Adv. Levit. Consequently, she saw no reason to cancel her decision to award the actual legal costs + witness fee – intermediate costs that were unnecessary.


Trade Dress, Likelihood of Confusion and Passing Off

November 26, 2014
Not that kind of can can...

Not that kind of can can…

XL Energy International Corp. is a leading manufacturer of energy drinks.

Here is one of their cans:

classic XL can

Cool Trade & Industry Co. have twice tried to get large shipments of empty beverage pans into the West Bank (also known as the Palestinian Authority and as Judea & Samaria) over the Allenby Bridge from Jordan. The shipments were each of 600,000 cans. In the first case, Judge Gideon Ginat of the Tel Aviv District Court ruled that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Cool Trade & Industry Co cans and those of XL and that the cans should be destroyed or sent back to Jordan, whereas in the second case, he ruled that there was no likelihood of confusion and the cans could enter the country.

The decision highlights the fine differences between competing products that are legitimate alternatives, and those that are considered as copies.

Background

XL Energy International Corp. produces the XL energy drink in its factory in Poland. The product is described as being a carbonated energy drink containing and caffeine and taurine that is manufactured by Tempo Drinks LTD. The company claims to have sold hundreds of millions of cans since introduced into Israel in 2004. Tempo distributes in Israel and Unipal General Trading Co. distributes in the areas under the control of the Palestinian Autonomy.

On 19 March 2013, following a first shipment of 600,000 HipHop cans labeled X2 in a red font that is arguably confusingly similar to the XL log, in blue cans with darker blue bubbles, the Customs Authority held up the shipment and Tempo and XL sued for trademark infringement, passing off and Unjust Enrichment. On 30 April 2014 a second shipment of 600,000 was held up by customs and XL sued again. This time the cans do not have the darker bubbles and the X2 logo is in black and silver instead of in red.

XL has two Israel trademarks. Israel TM No. 216718 and 217476 reproduced below.

TM 216718   TM 217476

They sued for trademark infringement under the Trademark Ordinance 1972 and for passing off under Section 1a of the trade laws 1999.

The first set of imported cans are shown here.

first shipment   first shiment 2

The second set of imported cans are show here:

second shiment   second shiment 2

XL claims to have sold 53,000,000 cans in the Palestinian Autonomy during the years 2009 to 2013 and to have spent half a million dollars in advertising. The parties agree that their products are similar, are aimed at a similar market and are distributed via similar retail outlets and may even be sold on the same shelf.

The plaintiff argued that customers do not have perfect recall and may see a Hip-Hop can and think that it is an XL can. Their witness argued that customers spend three seconds in front of the beverage refrigerator and that this type of purchase is an impulse purchase. There are differences between the two cans, but the overall impression provided by the two cans is the same. Judge Ginat accepted this argument based on the case-law, particularly 5454/02 Taam Teva (1988) Tovoli vs. Ambrosa.

The defendant argued that XL were not entitled to a monopoly on the X or on blue cans. They claimed that their cans had different markings, different text and different text colour.

Judge Ginat was convinced that the defendant was well aware of the XL cans trade-dress and appearance before they designed the Hip-Hop can. The issue is the likelihood of confusion of customers.

Citing an ECJ ruling: Court of Justice of the European Communities, JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),  Tresplain Investments v. OHIM (9 Dec 2010)

“Under the laws of the United Kingdom, it is for the court in question to determine whether it is likely that the relevant public will be deceived. Examples of specific instances of confusion may be useful, but the decision of the court does not depend solely or even primarily on the evaluation of such evidence (Parker’Knoll Ltd v Knoll International Ltd (1962) R.P.C. 265, 285, 291 HL).”

Judge Ginat noted that although the case was brought in the Tel Aviv court and was cans were intended for the Palestinian market. The issue here is likelihood of confusion by West Bank and Gazan Arabs. Unfortunately, neither party has provided any evidence regarding the market, such as consumer, wholesaler or retailer testimonies. The defendant’s evidence was mumbled and unclear. What is clear is that there are other energy drinks such as Blu.

Judge Ginat noted that in the UK, the courts were wary of giving monopolies based on colours, and cited the following precedents:

  • Sodastream Ltd. v Thorn Cascade Co. Ltd. [1982] RPC 459
  • Roche Products v. Berk [1973] R P C 461
  • Cadbury-Schwepps . The Pub Squash [1981] R P C 429, 460-461

He also noted that Judge Dr Binyamini had rejected Straus’ claims against Noga Icecream as them having a monopoly for gold containers. Furthermore, a single letter such as X is not protectable as a trademark. See E! Entertainment vs. Duetche telekom A.G. and Dr Seligsohn “Law of Trademarks and related Laws, Schocken 1972.

He then went on to cite Qualitex v. Jacobson Products 514 U.S. 159 (1995) and Christian Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent America (5 Sep. 2012) to the effect that a colour can serve as a trademark, i.e. as an indication of origin.

“The question of whether a color can be protected as a trademark or trade dress was finally resolved in 1995 by the Supreme Court’s decision in Qualitex, which involved a claim for trade dress protection of the green-gold color of a dry cleaning press pad. The question presented was “whether the [Lanham Act] permits the registration of a trademark that consists, purely and simply, of a color.”  Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 160–61 (citation omitted). Reversing a decision of the Ninth Circuit that had declared color per se ineligible for trademark protection, the Court observed that “it is difficult to find, in basic trademark objectives, a reason to disqualify absolutely the use of a color as a mark.” Id. at 164. The Court held, among other things, that it could find no “principled objection to the use of color as a mark in the important ‘functionality’ doctrine of trademark law.” Id. It concluded that “color alone, at least sometimes, can meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark. It can act as a symbol that distinguishes a firm’s goods and identifies their source, without serving any other significant function.” Id. at 166 (emphasis added).”

However, the US Supreme Court acknowledged an Aesthetic Functionality Doctrine under which monolistic rights in a colour will not be granted where doing so undermines the competitor’s ability to compete in the relevant market.

“In short, a mark is aesthetically functional, and therefore ineligible for protection under the Lanham Act, where protection of the mark significantly undermines competitors’ ability to compete in the relevant market. See Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996, 1006 (2d Cir. 1995) (linking aesthetic functionality to availability of alternative designs for children’s fall-themed sweaters); Landscape 20 Forms, Inc., 70 F.3d at 253 (holding that “in order for a court to find a product design functional, it must first find that certain features of the design are essential to effective competition in a particular market”). In making this determination, courts must carefully weigh “the competitive benefits of protecting the source-identifying aspects” of a mark against the “competitive costs of precluding competitors from using the feature.” Fabrication Enters., Inc., 64 F.3d at 59. Finally, we note that a product feature’s successful source indication can sometimes be difficult to distinguish from the feature’s aesthetic function, if any. See, e.g., Jay Franco & Sons, Inc. v. Franek, 615 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2010) (noting that “[f]iguring out which designs [produce a benefit other than source identification] can be tricky”). Therefore, in determining whether a mark has an aesthetic function so as to preclude trademark protection, we take care to ensure that the mark’s very success in denoting (and promoting) its source does not itself defeat the markholder’s right to protect that mark. See Wallace Int’l Silversmiths, Inc., 916 F.2d at 80 (rejecting argument that “the commercial success of an aesthetic feature automatically destroys all of the originator’s trademark interest in it, notwithstanding the feature’s secondary meaning and the lack of any evidence that competitors cannot develop noninfringing, attractive patterns”).

Because aesthetic function and branding success can sometimes be difficult to distinguish, the aesthetic functionality analysis is highly fact-specific. In conducting this inquiry, courts must consider both the markholder’s right to enjoy the benefits of its effort to distinguish its product and the public’s right to the “vigorously competitive market[ ]” protected by the Lanham Act, which an overly broad trademark might hinder. Yurman Design, Inc., 262 F.3d at 115 (internal quotation mark omitted). In sum, courts must avoid jumping to the conclusion that an aesthetic feature is functional merely because it denotes the product’s desirable source. Cf. Pagliero, 198 F.2d at 343.”

In summary, whether or not a colour mark is recognized is highly case-specific. This made the judge’s ruling difficult as neither side provided evidence regarding other energy drinks available in territories administered by the Palestinian Authority.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Judge Ginat felt that despite the obvious and non-accidental similarities, where other manufacturers are selling energy drinks in blue cans and using an X, or bubbles, noone is entitled to a monopoly for these with regards to carbonated energy drinks.

Judge Ginat considered that the first shipment of cans is confusingly similar to XL’s beverage cans and so there was passing off. Furthermore, the cans were marked in ways that are very similar to identical to XL’s registered marks.  However, the second shipment, where the cans were clearly labeled Hip Hop Energy X2 the background blue is different and there is no likelihood of customer confusion nor is there trademark infringement.

Verdict

The Customs Authority shall see to the destruction of the first shipment and the defendant is forbidden from importing or distributing cans of the first design. The second shipment shall be released and the storage costs incurred will be born by the plaintiff.

If Cool Trade & Industry Co. do not pay the storage costs, Customs may deduct this from the deposit made by XL who may then sue Cool Trade & Industry Co. to recover the costs.

In the cirucumstances, no costs were awarded to either party and no fines were imposed. 

Civil Ruling 38108-03-13 and 26979-05-13 XL Energy International Corp. vs. Cool Trade & Industry Co., Tel Aviv District Court, Judge Gidon Ginat, 16 November 2014.

Comment 

Blu and Red Bull both have blue cans. The size of the energy drink cans is standard. In other words, there is a standard appearance that says energy drink. Judge Ginat considers that the customer will recognize Cool Trade & Industry Co.’s cans as being cans of energy drink, but won’t be confused into thinking that the cans are XLs.

There is a problem though. X2 looks remarkably like XL, and this seems intentional. A single letter cannot be registered as a trademark, but two characters can. West Bank Arabs might well see X2 as XL.

This ruling brings to mind Judge Agmon Gonen’s ruling concerning four stripe trainers that are inspired by Adidas’ designs but not really confusingly similar therewith. It also brings to mind the rather odd XO decision wherein two different companies selling energy drinks were allowed to register the same mark!

Finally, we remember fondly that whilst Pepsi was boycotting Israel due to pressure from Arab countries, a Galilean Arab manufactured and sold Pips Cola.

Pips Cola

The courts ruled that Pepsi had given up on their rights in Israel, and lacking other alternatives, Pepsi eventually bought the rights to Pips Cola from the manufacturer.


Forcing Foreign Witnesses to Attend Hearings In Jerusalem When There is a Difficult Security Situation

November 19, 2014

Courage under fire

It is very unfortunate that Israel in general and Jerusalem in particular suffers from terrorist attacks. The situation is not, of course, limited to Israel.

EBay Inc. is opposing Israel trademark application No. 243223 that was filed by Dotcom Retail LTD for the mark BEAUTYBAY.

Arguing that the US Government has warned its citizens not to travel to Israel, e-Bay Inc has asked to postpone a hearing that was scheduled for 3 November 2014 since it is a US company and one of their witnesses is prevented from coming to Israel because of the security situation. They requested a postponement until January 2015 and were willing to pay any costs caused by the delay. Alternatively, they suggested allowing the witness to testify by video-conference.

Dotcom Retail LTD objects to both requests. They claim that the current warning regarding the security situation in Israel has remained the same for decades, and submitted copies of the US Government’s warnings from 2010 – 2012. They claim that the decision against travel to Israel is an internal policy of eBay and is not an acceptable reason for delaying the hearing, as, say, the state of health of a witness might be. They supported their opposition to the request with reference to 2668/03 Etrade Group vs. Karden technologies LTD.

EBay noted that following the Protective Edge Campaign (War with Hamastan – Gaza) earlier this year, the situation in Israel is not normal and that they have forbidden their employees to travel to Israel. They suggested that the hearing could be held by video conference and noted that the Israel Supreme Court had upheld the possibility of conducting a hearing by video conferencing.

REGARDING DELAYING THE HEARING
In her ruling, the Deputy Commissioner, Ms Jacqueline Bracha, noted that the opposer had already postponed the hearing once and had tried to find someone willing to attend a hearing in November. Not being able to, they were requesting a second postponement.

She noted that in an Opposition to patent application number IL 107741 Unipharm vs. Merck & Co., the then Commissioner ruled that parties wishing to obtain IP rights in Israel or to oppose such rights should be willing to testify and to be cross-examined in Israel.

M Bracha accepted eBay was willing to participate in legal proceedings in Israel, but merely felt that the current time was too dangerous. However, she noted that there is no state of war at present that prevents hearings from taking place in Jerusalem. She noted that in 2006, then Commissioner Noam rejected ‘security considerations’ when there was no actual war taking place, and pointed out that a witness can arrive in an Israel Airport, travel to the Patent Office, give evidence and return on the same day. EBay cannot know from day to day or from month to month what the security situation is and therefore cannot guarantee that any postponement will suffice to reschedule a hearing under better circumstances.

The restriction was an internal decision of the eBay and was not a decision by the US government. It had no legal significance and one cannot simply create travel restrictions and expect the Israel Courts to uphold them.

VIDEO-CONFERENCING
Regarding the Supreme Court precedent regarding video conferencing, Ms Bracha noted that in extreme circumstances where a hearing was postponed four times due to a party being in ill-health, hearings have been held outside of a court room. Where the court sits in a court room but a witness testifies or is cross-examined by video conference, the situation is less than ideal in that the testimony is indirect when compared to a witness in the court room. It may be permitted in some circumstances, but use should be limited, particularly if the other party does not willingly consent.

In 3005/02 SmithKline vs. Unipharm testimony over a video link was allowed since the party could not force the witness to travel to Israel. The current case is different in that eBay is the source of the travel restriction, and can lift it as easily as they imposed it.

Referring back to 2668/03 Etrade Group vs. Karden technologies LTD, Ms Bracha ruled that there is a difference between a minor witness and a major one. The courts have rejected ‘security considerations’ as justification for a witness not turning up in court. Both the request for postponement and the request for video conferencing were both rejected.

COMMENT
I think this decision is correct. Formally, Israel is in an ongoing state of War with various Arab neighbours and has been since 1948. Hamas certainly see themselves as in a perpetual state of war, and at best, accept temporary cease-fires as restraint. The case-law that deals with this issue shows that security problems are ongoing and may be considered a fact of life in Israel.

That said, we note that Operation Protective Edge was not declared as being a war, probably since Hamas are not recognized as being a State. It is not clear, therefore, that when there were rockets hitting the country, and occasionally hitting Jerusalem, that the Patent Office would have recognized a state of war. Security fears may be real and not merely a delaying tactic. On a daily basis there are terrorist attacks and many of these are in Jerusalem. I don’t have enough experience of testimony and cross-examination by video conferencing to know if it is a reasonable alternative to standard cross-examination conditions.

As an Israel citizen working and living here it is difficult for me to put myself in the position of an American. I am sure that things are better here than in Syria, Iraq and Iran. I suspect that they are safer than in Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan as well. Let us hope and pray that the security situation in Israel approves.


Royal Clothing – A Hassidic Trademark Spat

November 11, 2014

royal clothing

Royal – the Great Center for American Clothing, LTD filed Israel trademark application no. 236655 for Royal Clothing. the mark covers clothing, shoes and head coverings in class 25.

Broadway Hassidic Clothing LTD opposed the registration claiming to have exclusive rights in the term Royal, and that the mark should be refused as lacking distinctiveness when compared to their (non-registered) mark. The mark could confuse the public and support unfair trade, and was filed in bad faith.

Broadway Hassidic Clothing LTD  claimed to be the leading purveyors of Hassidic garb, including trouser suits, shirts, study gowns and Shabbat cloaks, with multi-million dollar sales in Israel and abroad, and stores in Hassidic-Hareidi centers including Jerusalem, Bnei Barak, Ashdod, Beitar, Bet Shemesh and New York. In addition to their stores, they held seasonal sales. Although not having registered the brand, Broadway Hassidic Clothing LTD  claimed to have used the brand name Royal since 2009. The Applicant, Royal – the Great Center for American Clothing, LTD, has a couple of shops in Ultra-Orthodox population centers Israel and claim to have exclusive rights from the brand owners in the US, who also failed to register their mark. Back in 2011, Royal – the Great Center for American Clothing, LTD opposed Israel Trademark  Application No. 235810 for Royal Clothing, opposed a registration by Broadway Hassidic Clothing for a stylized mark. That application was abandoned.  Meanwhile, Broadway Hassidic Clothing LTD now has a pending trademark application no. 244009 for the word “Royal”.

The applicants and opposers submitted various affidavits and statements and a hearing was heard. The problem was that neither side could show that they had registered rights in the US, or, indeed, had unregistered rights there. Both statements of case left gaps in the chain of ownership.

The opposer didn’t claim rights to the mark in question, but claimed rights to the word Royal, which is only part of the mark in question.

The Commissioner ruled that the Opposer had not succeeded in proving rights to the word Royal, and even less so to the mark in question which was sufficiently distinctive to be registerable. Even were the Opposer to demonstrate rights in the word Royal, that He ruled that the mark could be registered and both parties could submit requests for costs.

COMMENT

The Commissioner seems to have done a reasonable job applying trademark law to a case where neither side had paid attention to trademark issues in a timely manner and where the underlying facts are obscured.  It doesn’t seem that either party has royal connections or fabricates clothing by royal appointment. It is difficult to imagine any member of the UK Royal Family wearing Hassidic style clothing.

 

 

 

 


Wyeth’s Patent Term Extension for Bazedoxifene Cancelled Prior to ReExamination

November 10, 2014
Rocking the boat...

Rocking the boat…

There was an amendment to the Israel Patent Law earlier this year. This amendment (11th amendment) relates to patent term extensions. The amendment was announced, but did not go into immediate effect.

Wyeth filed a request to correct a mistake in the Patent Extension Order concerning Israel Patent Number 120701. The extension Order was given on 23 February 2014, and extends the basic patent for Bazedoxifene which, without the extension, would have lapsed on 18 April 2017.  The intention to grant an extension until 26 August 2019 was given in October 2013 and published back then. The calculation was based on the Law prior to the eleventh amendment.

On 18 September 2014, Wyeth submitted a request to correct the Extension Order to provide protection according to the regime after the eleventh amendment.

Section 16 of the Amendment states:

16(a) this Law will apply to Extension Order requests that are pending before the Commissioner of Patents on the day that this Law comes into effect, and for future requests for patent term extension.

Wyeth’s contention is that the amendment to the Law came into effect on 27 January 2014 and due to the publication for opposition purposes, the period for opposition finished on 31 January 2014, so, at the time the Law came into affect no Patent Term Extension had been granted and the request for patent term extension for IL 120701 must, therefore, be considered as pending at the time the amendment came into effect.

The amendment narrowed down the list of countries that could be relied upon for Israel to grant a corresponding extension. Instead of anywhere in Europe that grants an extension, only Italy, UK, Germany, Spain and France could be taken into account. Significantly, Japan was no longer considered a relevant country in regards to patent term extensions. Wyeth’s patent was extended on the basis of the extension of the corresponding Japanese patent. By ignoring Japan, a longer term could be requested.

There is an interesting twist here. In October 2013, the FDA issued approval for Bazedoxifene together with conjugated estrogens as Duavee. This fact was not taken into account in calculating the Patent term Extension and could act against Wyeth. The Commissioner ruled that it would be improper to apply some sections of the amendment and not others, and that the Israel Patent Office should consider the ramifications of this FDA approval as well. In consequence, the Commissioner did not amend the ruling, but rather canceled it as a wrongfully given bureaucratic decision. He ruled that the published patent term extension was null and void and that the Application would be subjected to accelerated re-examination under the amended Law with the ramifications, if any, of the FDA approval of Duavee also considered.

Various legal precedents were given to support this contention and the solution it offered. The Commissioner noted that Patent Term Extensions are not final and could be reconsidered, even previous to the eleventh amendment.  He related to previous rulings concerning Teva vs. Abbott, Neurim, Lundbeck vs. Unipharm and Roche.

In addition to being able to oppose any subsequent patent term extension, the cancellation of the existing patent term extension may also be opposed by third parties.

Ruling Concerning Patent term extension to IL 120701 to Wyeth, 3 November 2014.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 372 other followers