Elad Barkan owns Israel Patent No. 133671 titled “CRYPTANALYSIS METHOD AND SYSTEM” and Rontal Engineering Applications 2001 (LTD) is attempting to have this patent canceled.
One question that arose in the cancellation proceedings is how the claimed invention differs from that of the corresponding US patent.
Rontal Engineering’s representatives engaged veteran Israel Patent Attorney Sanford T Colb to explain this, which he did in an Affidavit. Barkan’s attorneys requested permission to submit an expert opinion of their own and this was duly allowed.
Elad Barkan wrote the expert opinion himself, challenging Colb’s competence in cryptoanalysis. Rontal Engineering’s lawyers then submitted to have Barkan’s affidavit thrown out as it raised new issues, and, according to them, despite his competence regarding the technical subject matter, the correct reading of claims is a matter of law that was outside his competence. They also noted that as a party to the proceedings he could hardly be considered an impartial expert witness.
After referring to different sections of the affidavit that showed that Barkan was indeed ignorant of claim construction, the Deputy Commissioner Ms Bracha had his Affidavit struck from the record, and announced that costs for this skirmish would be taken into account at the end of the main proceedings.
In Israel we do not have specialist IP courts and any District Judge or Supreme Court judge may be called upon to rule on IP cases. Sometimes, the judge has no scientific background and has never studied IP law and occasionally the decisions are plane wrong. See here for an example of a very wrong decision. The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are specialist IP judges. They have a team of Examiners that they can call on. they should therefore be able to construe the scope of protection of claims granted in Israel without the help of a practitioner in private practice, however experienced and competent.
I think that Luthi et al who represented Barkan should have understood or at least clarified what Ms Bracha wanted in a counter-opinion, and should know that clients are not impartial and generally make lousy witnesses.
Categories: cancellation proceedings, claims, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Agency, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Uncategorized, US, US Patent Office, USPTO, החלטת ביניים, החלטת רשות הפטנטים, פטנט, פטנטים, קניין רוחני, קנין רוחני