Unipharm without legal representation, wins Interim Proceeding Against Novartis

February 22, 2018

galvusIsrael  Patent Application No. 176831 to Novartis is titled “COMPRESSED PHARMACEUTICAL TABLETS OR DIRECT COMPRESSION PHARMACEUTICAL TABLETS COMPRISING DPP-IV INHIBITOR CONTAINING PARTICLES AND PROCESSES FOR THEIR PREPARATION ” the patent application is a national phase of PCT/EP/2005/000400. It relates to a pharmaceutical used in the treatment for diabetes known as Vildagliptin (previously LAF237, trade names Galvus, Zomelis,) which is an oral anti-hyperglycemic agent (anti-diabetic drug) of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor class of drugs. Vildagliptin inhibits the inactivation of GLP-1[2][3] and GIP[3] by DPP-4, allowing GLP-1 and GIP to potentiate the secretion of insulin in the beta cells and suppress glucagon release by the alpha cells of the islets of Langerhans in the pancreas.

Unipharm has opposed the patent issuing and, in an intermediate proceeding, Unipharm (not represented) submitted a disclosure request for:

  1. The specific testing referred to Appendix E of a the Applicant’s expert witness.
  2. All other tests relating to all the formulations that were performed where the particle size distribution was examined.


Alternatively, Unipharm requests that the part of the evidence that relates to the evidence submitted in the European Opposition proceeding from Dr Davis’ statement, including Appendix E, be struck.

The patent relates to tablets that are made by direct compaction and which include DPP-IV, (s)-1-[(3-hydroxy-1-adamantyl)amino]acetyl-2-cyanopyrrolidin (Vildagliptin) in free radical form or as a salt, wherein at least 80% of the particles compressed into the tablet are in size range of 10 microns to 250 microns.


In their Statement of Case, Novartis explains that use of direct compression was not obvious to persons of the art wishing to produce vildagliptin formulations, and the distribution and size of the particles affects the character of the tablet in a manner that determines the efficacy of the formulation. The chosen distribution enables tablets to be produced by direct compaction which have high quality, acceptable stability and good physical properties.

With respect to this, Novartis’ expert witness, Dr Davis, explains in his expert opinion as follows:

“There is no prior art suggesting that tablets of vildagliptin can be made using direct compression with this size range or any size range. This particle size range and percentage of the active agent is not disclosed in the prior art. It should be noted that the particle size distribution is important to achieving good physical properties in the tablet (e.g. good hardness). Evidence filed in a technical annex for the corresponding European Patent Application No.15199440.7 (available on-line from the EPO at https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=EZQR8ZQ06757DSU&number=EP15199440&lng=en&npl=false),  comparing 88% PSD of 10-250 micron (within the claim) versus 79% PSD of 10-250 micron (outside the claim) shows that the use of a particle size distribution as claimed is important in providing directly compressed tablets with good hardness (Appendix E).”

The Expert witness related to the technical appendixes that were submitted by the Applicant to the European Patent Office which compares tablets that fall within the ambit of claim 1 to those that do not, and this is the basis of the discovery request that Unipharm submitted.

Claims of the Parties

disclosureUnipharm’s opposition to this evidence is that Professor Davis relied on test results from tests that he himself did not conduct, and they express wonderment that Novartis did not produce the drug developers to be cross-examined. In response, the Applicants claim that the disclosure process should be allowed in cases where it is proven that the documents in question are relative to the proceeding in general and to the point of contention between the parties, and in this instance the Opposer did not justify his request for disclosure of documents and did not explain how the disclosure would help clarify the question under debate.

grain size

Novartis further allege that the request for disclosure is wide and general, in that it relates to all testing and formulations made, where particle size was examined. The Applicant further asserts that Dr Davis referred to Appendix E merely to show that it was published and not as evidence that the data therein is true (!?).

As to Unipharm’s alternative request, Novartis claims that the Opposer did not base this allegation, and that we are referring to an expert opinion based on data provided to him and his relying on the publication is equivalent to any expert relying on a professional publication such as a paper in a scientific journal or a patent application in a relevant field.

file-wrapperIn response, Unipharm claims that the Applicant’s expert, Professor Davis, did not merely testify that the document was included in the file wrapper of the European Patent Application, but also reached conclusions in his expert opinion that were based thereon. As far as anything connected to the scope of the disclosure, Unipharm focuses their request and asks to receive the documents relating to the experimentation with the particle distributions and efficacy of formulations made with the specific distributions.

Unipharm claims that the documents will reveal that the tests conducted, if indeed conducted, do not provide sufficient instruction to persons of the art to produce the invention successfully without additional experimentation and thus the patent application should be rejected as not enabled under Section 12 of the Israel Patent Law 1967.

Discussion and Ruling

legal fishing expedition

There is no doubt that the Commissioner of Patents can request disclosure and access to documents in opposition proceedings. The disclosure is efficient in that it provides documents to the Patent Office that are not covered by Section 18 of the Law (Duty of Disclosure) and which can help clarify if an application is patent worthy. However, disclosure is performed in a manner to prevent the Applicant going on an illegal fishing expedition in the Applicant’s filing cabinets.

The considerations to be weighed up prior to giving a disclosure order are detailed in Opposition to 60312 Biotechnology General Corp vs. Genentech Inc and in Opposition to 143977 AstraZeneca AB vs. Unipharm ltd, and these are the stage of the opposition reached; the amount of documents and their content; the weight of the claim that the Applicants are attempting to prove with the documents asked disclosure of, their evidential weight, the possibility of the Applicant to obtain the documents themselves, and the burden it will cause the opposing party.

In these rulings it was also determined that disclosure could damage the property rights of the opposing party by forcing revelation of trade-secrets. However, the possibility of such damage being caused does not remove the authority of the Patent Office to demand such a disclosure, but obliges consideration of the legitimate property rights of the party when applying that authority.

In the opinion of Commissioner Alon Ofir, Novartis is correct that the experimental results will have no effect on the average person of the art’s ability to implement the invention. The answer to this question is found in what is revealed and not in what is not revealed in the patent application.

Nevertheless, Unipharm is correct with regard to everything related to the tests described in Appendix E, since the Applicant himself relied upon this in his statement. In this regard the Commissioner does not accept that this evidence can be considered as external evidence that their Expert Witness relied on. The document was prepared by Novartis themselves, with data they control, and their expert witness relied on it in his Opinion.


The particle size distribution is claimed by Novartis themselves as being a central element of their invention, and the claims of the Application itself limits the requested patent to one wherein 80% of the particles are in the 10 micron to 250 micron range. The Applicants themselves state in their Statement of Case, that the choice of particle size and distribution is what enables the fabrication of tablets of an acceptable quality by direct compression. Their Expert Witness finds support for this claim in Appendix E which compares tablets having this particle distribution with tablets that do not.

In these circumstances, one should consider the documents as relating to the central question being debated by the parties. Thus the documents relating to Appendix E are ruled relevant and Novartis are required to provide not just those relied upon but other documents summarizing experiments done with the intention of producing Appendix E, even if not included therein.

Novartis is given 30 days to produce an Affidavit of Disclosure with the relevant documents describing test results obtained in the experimentation leading to Appendix E, whether or not included in the Appendix, but relating to the hardness of tablets made from different particle distribution.

As an after-note, the Opposer is chastised for using language that does not show respect for the proceedings which was inappropriate.

No costs are awarded.

Ruling on Interim Proceeding regarding disclosure, by Commissioner Ofir Alon, 3 January 2018.


trawlingIn court proceedings in the United States there is wide discovery and the parties effectively go on fishing expeditions with trawlers and haul up everything and then have to wade through the bycatch.  This is not the case in Israel. One can ask for specific documents, but have to justify the request. Thus I have used the term disclosure and not discovery.

self representation

In this instance, Unipharm is not-represented, or to be more accurate Dr Zebulun Tomer is representing himself. No doubt if he runs into trouble he will call on his attorney Adi Levit to represent them. It is unlikely that the inappropriate language lost Unipharm a costs award as, since they have not used legal counsel, they are not entitled to costs anyway.

We strongly discourage industrialists to represent themselves in Opposition proceedings. The Tomers, however, have so much experience of killing pharma patent applications that there are very few lawyers that have handled so many cases.

Passed Off Pasta?

February 8, 2018

barilla pasta

Barilla is an Italian pasta brand that is on sale in Israel.

Oddly enough, pasta is made of durum wheat (Triticum durum or Triticum turgidum subsp. durum), which is a tetraploid species of wheat which is hard to mill due to the starchy endosperm. Dough made from its flour is weak or “soft”. This makes durum favorable for couscous (semolina) and pasta, and less practical for flour. It is actually grown in Israel and exported to Italy!

Rami Levy

Rami Levy (Shivuk HaShikma) is an Israel chain of supermarkets that, as well as selling commercial brands, negotiates with manufacturers and packages its own-brand labels which are usually cheaper.


Recently, Rami Levy started stocking its own-label dried pasta.

Rami Levy pasta

As you can see, Rami Levy’s pasta, like Barilla, uses a blue box, albeit a slightly different shade, and has the type of pasta contained viewable through a cellophane window. The type of pasta (penne, spaghetti, cannelloni, etc.) is written in white, although on Barilla’s product, the name is in English letters and on Rami Levy’s own brand, it is in Hebrew. Rami Levy Shivuk Hashikma is written across the top and on the side of the box. The name of the brand, written in yellow, seems to be a face with a hat on and wide mouth, but is actually a stylized O followed by lla in italics giving Olla. However, Barilla also ends with an lla.

Barilla sued Rami Levy in the Tel Aviv District Court for a million shekels (about $300,000 US, 250,000 Euros) and obtained an injunction ordering Rami Levy to take their own-brand pasta and sauces off the shelves. Rami Levy filed a counter-suit and the cases are pending.

Rami Levy claims that Barilla waited for over 14 months since Rami Levy introduced their own-label and so the case should be thrown out. He claims that his competition is fair and Barilla should respond by advertising, discounts and special offers. He dismisses allegations of passing off, and argues that there is an overwhelming weight of precedent from the District and Supreme Court that indicates that the similarity is not excessive and that the case is baseless. The name Rami Levy, the Italian series is clearly written in white on blue in large letters.

Barilla has a trademark on their brand name and not on the design of the package or on the blue colour. Rami Levy accuses Barilla of ignoring their own branding and trying to monopolize the blue colour. However the case-law does not support claims of passing off where packages are similar but the trade name is clearly written and there is no likelihood of confusion in such cases. The courts do not recognize rights in a packaging colour. Rami Levy further claims that with over half a billion shekels in sales of “the private brand” in 2017, his sales outstrip those of Barilla. His prices are much lower and this also distinguishes them, and there are a number of accumulative differences.


taaman 1taaman 2

We note that Taaman (pun on taam which means both taste and reason) is an Israeli importer and distributer of staples such as flour, pasta, chocolate, etc. that also has a red logo with white text in an oval. Their name, in Hebrew, is written in a backwards leaning italic font, however as Hebrew is written from right to left, the sloping is the same as that of Barilla. Their pasta is packaged in blue cellophane with a window showing the content. Thus Barilla’s packaging is perhaps less unique than they claim, although Taaman uses cellophane bags and not boxes.

In a recent decision the Deputy Commissioner refused to register a black box with silver trim as a trademark. Back in 2014, Judge Ginat refused to recognize a trade-dress in blue energy drink cans. Judge Binyamini threw out a claim that one ice-cream manufacturer was entitled to a monopoly on gold ice-cream tubs. Then again, Abu Shukra were unable to register their application for a trademark for a coffee package that is similar to Elite’s Turkish coffee.




Statute of Limitation for Compensation for an Employee Invention

January 28, 2018

This ruling considers when the seven year Statute of Limitations starts for an employee to turn to the tribunal for service inventions for a ruling regarding appropriate compensation.



Section 134 of the Israel Patent Law establishes a tribunal comprising a judge, the Patent Commissioner and an academic, whose job it is to determine an appropriate level of compensation for an employee inventor if asked to do so.

The Law is clear that such inventions are the property of the employer. If there is a contractual arrangement regarding compensation it is usually upheld. Nevertheless, the committee has the authority to hear cases and make rulings, and several such rulings have published in recent years.  See re Barzani.


In this instance, on 20 April 2015 Dr Ruth Levy who was previously employed by Teva Pharmaceuticals, requested that the committee rule compensation for her employee invention of rasagiline which because the active ingredient of AZILECT™.


Teva opposed based on her tardiness in bringing the claims and the Statute of Limitations for such actions. They also requested that the tribunal set out a timetable for discussing the issues, and that they firstly address whether the case should simply be dismissed out of hand due to the time passed.

The witnesses concerned were aged, and Dr Levy opposed the timetable. Eventually it was decided to collect testimony first and then to establish a time-table for everything else.

After the usual preliminary skirmishes, on 30 June 2016 the tribunal ruled that Professor Cohen should be cross-examined at his home on 12 July 2016 and the other witnesses (including Dr Levy) would be cross-examined on 28-30 August 2016 at the Israel Patent Office.

Professor Cohen was cross-examined as scheduled, and the testimony of the other witnesses was postponed unto December 2016 at request and consent of both parties.

On 29 September 2019, the tribunal set a date for discussing initial questions, and delayed the hearing on the stature of limitations and aging of charges until later on.

On 25 October 2019, Dr Levy submitted her response to the initial requests together with affidavits and appendices and submitted that the affidavit of Professor Eldad Melamed which was part of her original submission, be included in the evidence, despite his having passed away in the meantime, making his cross-examination impossible.


Being swamped with material, the tribunal cancelled the scheduled cross-examinations and decided to relate to whether the case should be thrown out due to the statute of limitations first, so that if they concluded that the application for compensation was filed too late, it would not need to be addressed substantively.

The Main Claims of the Parties

claimsDr Levy has a PhD in microbiology and was employed by TEVA in various capacities relating to the Research and development of drugs from 1986 until retiring in 2013. She claimed that she was an active participant in a number of significant inventions, the most prominent being the active ingredient rasagiline which is used in the treatment of Parkinson’s Disease in the drug AZILECT™ which was marketed in Israel and Europe since 2005 and in the US since 2006.


TEVA responded that Dr Levy received full compensation for her inventions. I addition to her salary, she received a special grant of _______________ for her contribution to the development of AZILECT™. Teva considers that this grant was beyond that required by law and its acceptance created an implicit agreement between Dr Levy and the company regarding compensation for her inventive contribution. TEVA further claims that all the inventions that Dr Levy requests compensation for were invented over seven years before filing her request for compensation. Even if one counts the time period from when a patent application was filed, this is still seven years previous, and so the statute of limitations applies and she is not entitled to anything else.

Furthermore, Teva contends that by her behavior prior to suing, Dr Levy apparently gave up on any rights to additional compensation by not making any claims beyond her salary and grants, and so the case should be thrown out due to laches.

give up

Dr Levy disagrees. She considers that the special payment or grant that she received from TEVA was an admission that she had inventor rights. Furthermore, she only became aware of the right in 2012, and citing section 9 of the Statute of Limitations argued that the clock only starts ticking from her becoming aware of her rights.

It should be noted that Dr Levy denies that the payments made were compensation for her inventions. However, she claims that the fact that she denies this does not alter the fact that Section 9 of the Statute of Limitations starts with her becoming aware.

Alternatively, Dr Levy claims that if one does not accept the 2012 date, one should consider the period as starting with TEVA acknowledging her rights  which occurs in Paragraph 2.2 of the draft retirement agreement that TEVA drafted and sent her in 2013, and which was not included in the final version that was signed by the parties.

The paragraph remains confidential.


Dr Levy claims that had she signed the agreement including paragraph 2.2, this could be considered as being a waiver of her rights. She further alleges that raising the issue of Statute of Limitations is itself an act of bad faith since TEVA failed in their obligation to inform her about her right to compensation and to turn to the tribunal. Furthermore, as long as the parties consider that they have not reached an agreement by not being silent on the compensation issue, and have not performed an action that makes it clear that there remains disagreement between the parties, Section 134 has not been fulfilled and the employee has not yet got the right to claim compensation. So the period for making a concrete claim only starts with her retiring in 2013 when she made her final request for compensation.

Dr Levy considers that section 135(4) of the Patent Law regarding actual exploitation of the invention, is not a necessary condition for the committee under Section 134 to establish grounds for suing. However, it does reset the Statute of Limitations. She considers that there is reciprocity between the exploitation by the employer and the employees right to compensation.

The Applicant bases this assertion on the law under which the statute of limitations for suing for infringement of a patent can only occur from when the infringement first occurs, without any relevance being given to any previous infringements. She considers that every product that exploits a service invention recreates the employee’s grounds for suing. She considers that this is clear from the fact that the tribunal can reconsider its rulings as circumstances change.   Thus there is time limit to when one can approach the tribunal under section 136. Any change in circumstances, such as exploitation of the patent in practice, reestablishes grounds for the employee suing.


Were the tribunal to rule differently, pharmaceutical inventions would have two windows, the first within seven years of inventing and the second within seven years of a change of circumstances under section 136. This is inefficient.

Dr Levy further alleges that only after seeking legal advice did she become aware of the her right for compensation under the Israel  Patent Law. She considers that the employer is obliged to explain all rights to employees and should have made a formal approach to her to settle the issue.

Dr Levy further alleges that a narrow window would force the employee to fight the employer during the period of employment and risk dismissal, and would force the negotiation to be from a position of weakness. Furthermore, a narrow seven year period would require her to have fought for each invention separately. This would have required her to approach the tribunal several times sometimes widely spaced, regarding a single pharmaceutical. Finally, she does not acknowledge being a side to any agreement with TEVA regarding employee inventions during her period of employment.


The Statute of Limitations does apply to rulings of the Committee for Compensation to Employee Inventors since it is a judicial body, see Appeal 402/77 Goldman vs. Herman, p.d. 32(2) 421 page 428:

When the legislative defined “court” in the Statute of Limitations it bothered to clarify in the definitions section that the term court did not only refer to the law courts or Rabbinic courts but also to any judicial authority, and even to an arbitrator who is not an Authority in that he is not an Institution that generally exists, but is rather an ad hoc authority. This means to say that the legislation specifically opined tat any play where the Law provides judicial authority to any entity, the Statute of Limitations applies.

Section 2 of the Statute of Liberties states that:

A claim for any right is subject to become aged, and if a legal submission is made for an aged right and the one sued claims the defense of the Statute of Limitations, the court need not address the issue, however the Statute of Limitations per say does not cancel the abrogated right.

Section 5 of the Statute of Liberties states that apart from real estate issues, the Statute of Limitations is seven years.

Section 6 of the Statute of Liberties states that:

The period from which seven years is counted starts with the incident that created the grounds for filing the complaint.


In Appeal 10192/07 Pisgat Ashdod Civil Engineering LTD vs. Chen Gal Investments and Trading ltd. (24 May 2010) paragraph 17 of the ruling establishes that the time when a claim is conceived for the purposes of starting the Statute of Limitations clock is when the significant facts that are the basis of the requested claim come together. See Uri Goren “Issues in Civil Law” p. 118, 10th edition, 2009, Appeal 242/66 Jacobson vs. Gez p.d. 21(1) 85, 92 (1967). Estate of Williams p. 271, Appeal 244/81 Patent vs. Histadrut Health Fund p.d. 38(3) 673, 678-679 (1984). However, this definition does not fully cover the concept of when a claim is born. As far as the Statute of Limitations clock is concerned, it is insufficient for the claimant to have grounds for suing; he needs a concrete incident that can be proven in court for him to be able to file his claims and win the sanction he applies for. See 1650/00 Zisser vs. Ministry of Housing, p.d. 57(5) 166, 175 (2003).

monkey tribunal

Section 134 of the Israel Patent Law states that the tribunal has the authority to determine that an employee has the right to compensation for Service Inventions in cases where there is no agreement between the employer and employee:

If there is no agreement that prescribes whether, to what extent and on what conditions the employee is entitled to remuneration for a service invention, then the matter shall be decided by the compensation and royalties committee established under Chapter Six.

The Applicant claims that her rights as an employee come into play when the employee invention is made and she is entitled to compensation for inventing. However, she claims that her concrete right to file her complaint under Section 134 come into play only when there is no agreement between the parties regarding the employees rights. So long as it is not clear that there is no agreement, there is no concrete grounds for suing and thus the clock does not start to tick.

The tribunal rejects this claim. Section 134 states that where there is no agreement that regulates the employee’s right, the employee has the right to turn to the tribunal to determine if the employee is entitled to compensation and if so, how much? The requirement for a lack of agreement is a factual one objective one and is not subjective, as claimed by the complainant. As to when the concrete claim from which the clock starts to tick, this will be addressed below.

working together

Unlike other legal systems, the Israel Patent Law does not require that employer and employee will actively work towards forging an agreement as a preliminary action for Section 134 of the Law to come into effect. There is also no need for the parties to have a disagreement regarding compensation. So in accordance with the conditions laid out in re Ashdod Engineering (above), the plaintiff could have turned to the tribunal before negotiating on retirement, and the tribunal could have ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation. In light of this legal situation, there is no basis for the claim that the employer is obliged to approach the employee and offer compensation. However, it is good for the employer to do so. Similarly, it is fitting for the legislation to consider including an obligation of this nature in light of the respective power of the parties, in light of Judge Rubinstein’s comments in re Barzani which are related to below.


The time when a concrete obligation was born

It is pertinent to discuss when an employee invention as defined in the Israel Patent Law comes into being for the purposes of the Statute of Limitation. One possibility is that the employee invention comes into being at the moment that the employee informs his employer that he has come up with an invention due to his employment or during his employment, as per Section 131 of the Law and the employer decides to monopolize the Invention under Section 132(a). There is an assumption that the parties do not disagree that this is a service invention. The logic behind this choice is that from the moment that the employee and employer fulfill their obligations under Sections 131 and 132 of the law, the parties are aware that there is a service inventions and have declared their interest regarding ownership, and this is the first opportunity to relate to the question of compensation. It is noted that by this approach the conceptual right and the concrete right.

A second possibility for when the right to compensation starts, is either when a patent application is filed or when a patent issues. These periods are periods when the employer shows interest in the invention. However, these dates are problematic since there are cases when an employee invents something that the employer does not apply for a patent for.

A third possibility for the concrete right is when the employer exploits the patent as per section 135(4) of the law. On the face of it, it seems that until the patent is utilized, it is not clear that the parties can really evaluate the worth of the patent. However, this approach is also problematic: exploitation does not occur in a single unequivocal event but is rather an ongoing process  during which various variables can affect the profitability of the invention. Similarly, it raises the question of whether the worker is entitled to a share in the profits if the employer sells the patent and does not exploit it directly.

That said, both the second option, and particularly the third one raise a further problem which it whether a concrete ground for suing as opposed to a conceptual ground for suing is cause to turn to the tribunal? Perhaps there is a difference from when the clock starts to tick, and the time period when the tribunal has the authority to relate to the employee’s claim for compensation. This means to say that it may be sufficient for there to be a conceptual claim for the tribunal to have authority, but a concrete right is required for the Statute of Limitations clock to start ticking. In the regard one should note that in Actelis Networks vs. Yishai Ilani (3 Feb 2010) discussed below, the tribunal concluded that one can request compensation prior to actual exploitation occurring.

In this instance, the tribunal sees no reason to rule on the issue of when the seven years Statute of Limitations period starts since the Complainant’s case was filed more than seven years after all the candidate dates.  Below claims by complainant to prevent the Statute of Limitations applying are discussed.

The Statute of Limitations as per re Schechter


The Applicant relates to the decision ruled in217/86 Mordechai Schechter vs. Abmatz LTD, p.d. 44(2) 846, following which Section 73b of the Israel Paten Law was amended to state that the Statute of Limitations does not apply to patent cancellation requests. Dr Levy considers that the Schechter right to request a patent cancellation comes into effect when the Applicant for Cancellation has an interest in the patent being cancelled. So there is no single Statute of Limitations of seven years from when a patent issues, as stated in paragraph 5 of the decision:

When is the point at which the right to sue becomes grounds to sue? If we use a metaphor, what is the point at which a grain of sand in an oyster becomes a pearl? When translating this picture to the issue before us and to answer the question, when does the right to challenge the validity of a patent become grounds for filing a cancellation proceeding that starts the Statute of Limitation clock? In this instance, the cancellation period for filing a cancellation proceeding only starts when the Applicant for cancellation has a personal right to have a patent thrown out of the register.  (which also serves the public interest).  

In re Schechter, Judge Netanyahu explains that the rationale behind the establishment of the time frame in this manner is to enable the public to challenge the validity of the patent. The rationale for this is the purity of the register:

To block the possibility of attacking a patent on grounds of the Statute of Limitations or laches would lead to the result that after the period has passed, the patent would become an absolute right which contradicts the spirit behind The Patent Law. There is no policy or logic to justify a patent becoming inviolate from direct attack by cancellation proceedings after seven  years when the same reasoning allows a patent to be enforced for 27 years or more. What logic is there to make things difficult for a responsible person who wars that applicant to check the status of a patent in advance and to make is easier for someone to defend himself during infringement proceedings for an ‘at risk’ product launch? The logical conclusion from the perspective of Patent Law is that Patent Law is incompatible with laches and Statute of Limitations and does not coexist with it.

Judge Netanyahu explains that the conceptual right is a public right to have patents cancelled. However, only if someone is interested in cancelling the patent is there a concrete right to request for cancellation. The period for so doing starts with the day that the concrete right comes into effect:

This way, that differentiates between the conceptual right and the concrete grounds for an action lead to the following conclusion: The right to cancel a patent is a ‘right open to every person’, it is a fundamental concrete right that remains simple until it aggregates into a concrete right and an issue develops for the Applicant for Cancellation. Only then does the clock start running. So where the cancellation request is filed by a third party, and not the patentee who is owns the invention, the public is drawn in by virtue of their conceptual right to the concrete private claim. However, this is not the claim of the appellant. The claim is made on behalf of the public –that the invention is not patentable. Until there is a private concrete claim to use the patented invention, the clock does not start ticking.

The present case is different. The right to submit for a patent to be cancelled is a right that the Patent Law gives the public; that means to say that anyone can submit a cancellation request. The claims for compensation for inventing is conceptually limited to the employee inventor as a personal right that he has by virtue of inventing. The employer’s obligation is, to the extent that the tribunal decides that it exists, is an in personam contractual right to the specific employee and not a general in rem public right. Thus the conceptual right, i.e. that of compensation and the concrete right, which is that which initiates the seven year period of the statute of limitations- both are private rights that exist between employee and employer and do not extend beyond this relationship.

The reciprocity of the relationship between the Exploiting the Invention and Claims for Compensation


The supplicant Dr Levy claims that there is a reciprocity between the Exploiting the invention by the employer and the ability of the inventor to claim compensation. She claims that as long as the employer exploits the inventions, the worker’s right to compensation is continuously regenerating.

The tribunal rejects the supplicant’s claim in this regard. Such reciprocity does not accord with the wording of the Patent Law and does not accord with the underlying logic.

In re Schechter, Judge Netanyahu stood firm in her belief that the rationale was to allow the public to attack registered patents, and stated that:

As stated previously that the perspective at the base of the patent law and the public aspect is to ensure the ‘purity of the register’. I also explained that since the commissioner has limited tools to test that patents have correctly issued, the system relies on the public and encourages them to submit challenges. However, the most effective challenge is by persons with a personal interest, whether claiming that he is the true inventor, or claiming that he is exploiting the invention and considers that it does not deserve patent protection, and whether he attacks it directly [by cancellation proceedings] or indirectly by at risk product launch, allowing the patentee to sue him, and him being able to use invalidity defense], no one will exert the effort or costs for a thorough inquiry into the questions raised, which may be complicated and require expert testimony, as well as someone with a personal interest.

In parallel with the public right to challenge the validity of a patent, the patentee has the right to claim damages for patent infringement. This right mirrors the right to attack the patent. The patentee has a monopolistic right to the invention but only if it is held to be protected by a valid patent.  Thus he can protect his invention  from infringement, but only as long as there is a valid patent.

In cases of expensive infringement, the infringer infringers the patentee’s rights each time that he uses the patented invention without permission. So each act of infringement is free standing.  However, individual acts of exploitation by the patentee are not individual grounds for the employer inventor to claim compensation that each reset the clock. Section 132 of the Patent Law fixes that a service invention “shall become the property of the employer”.  Due to his contribution, the employee inventor has a right to compensation. So the action creating rights for the inventor is a single event.

Nevertheless, the patent law does not ignore the complicated employer-employee relationship, and the conditions that can develop during the life of an invention.  The inventor can return to the tribunal if it can proven that “the conditions existed at the time of the ruling have changed”.  As stated in Section 136 of the Law, there has to have been an earlier ruling for the worker to be entitled to return to the tribunal. Thus section 136 is a special arrangement that that Law provides the worker, so as not to leave him unprovided for. But one should not assume asymmetry between the employers utilization of a patent and the right of the employee inventor to compensation such that each utilization restarts the Statute of Limitations period.

(The arrangement of Section 136 is similar to the entitlement of the estranged wife to support by the husband pending divorce. The financial support is not final and can be revisited if circumstances change, as, for example in Appeal 442/83 Moshe Pam vs. Deborah Kam, p.s. 38(1) 767 on page 771).

However, this is not really relevant to the issue of finality in the employer-employee case. The issue is when the employee can first request compensation? In marital support, personal law applies and there is a tendency to consider a woman that is tardy regarding claiming support, as giving up on it. In cases where the general law applies, the period of aging is very short in the amendment to Section 11 of the Family Law (Support) 1959. Nevertheless, if there is a submission for support prior to the period of the appropriate Statute of Limitations, the parties can claim for changes due to changes in circumstances.

It is noted that the significance of Section 135 of the Law is not the aggregation of circumstances that makes it possible to sue for compensation for making an employee invention. The purposes is established in the heading “Guidelines for Establishing Compensation”, and these are only the guidelines for the tribune to use when considering compensation:

  1. In making a decision under section 134, the compensation and royalties committee shall also take into account the following factors:
  • the capacity in which the employee was employed;
  • the nature of the connection between the invention and the employee’s work;
  • the employee’s initiative in making the invention;
  • the possibilities of exploiting the invention and its actual exploitation
  • (expenses reasonable under the circumstances incurred by the employee in order to secure protection for the invention in Israel.

One could argue that clause (4) regarding actual exploitation of the invention is forward looking and does not require a certain knowledge that this will be the case. This was why the Legislative also included Section 136 which enables the tribunal to revisit and reconsider cases rule don under section 134 if they consider that the circumstances have changed. From here it can be seen that if a first request was filed during the seven year period, the conditions underpinning the Statute of Limitations apply and both the employee and his employer have certainty that the issue can be reconsidered. This is whilst the tribunal can request possibilities of the invention being utilized at all times, and even early on, before there is practical usage.

As the tribunal ruled in re Actelis Networks vs. Yishai Ilani (3 Feb 2010) in Section 9 of the ruling, that actual usage is not required to give the employee the right of standing before the tribunal:

The claim that the request is theoretical and premature since there is no actual exploitation in practice is rejected. Section 135 states that one of the conditions for determining the amount of compensation is the possibility of implementation if the invention. So there is no need for actual implementation and the request for compensation is not premature.

In the Actiles case it is noted that the previous tribunal considered it had authority to hear the case despite no actual exploitation. The content of the ruling is based on tests in law, and it is possible that the tribunal will postpone ruling until a later date, such as when there is actual exploitation, if this circumstances require this, as per section 136 of the Law.

Not knowing the Law


Contrary to her assertion, the question of whether or not the Applicant had knowledge of her right to turn to the tribunal is not relevant to the concrete basis of her claims under Section 134. Section 8 of the Statute of Liberty states as follows:

If the claimant is not aware of the main grounds for claiming due to reasons beyond claimant’s control, and which with reasonable care, would still have been unable to prevent, the period for calculating the claim aging is calculated from when the claimant was first aware.

However, Appeal 1960/11 Almog vs. General Medical Services, 6 May 2013, page 7 states that Section 8 of the Statute of Limitations includes the objective test regarding when the period starts, but the burden of proof of its existence was only leaned later falls on plaintiff:

This claim is incompatible with the Guy Lipel, Donenfeld and Ganaim rule. It is difficult to argue that the period for reckoning the Statute of Limitations will start with receiving a professional medical opinion or when the law or a precedent becomes known. Otherwise, the clock for the Statute of Limitations is in the plaintiff’s control, which contradicts the rationale underlying the concept of claims aging. Section 8 of the Statute of Limitations gives both objective and subjective tests:

I will also note that since Section 8 of the law is an exception to the general rule of cases becoming aged, the burden of proof regarding retroactive awareness lies with the party claiming it (See Guy Lipel paragraph 41 and appendages.

It is true that not knowing the Law is not comparable to not knowing facts that would could have caused the plaintiff to file their suit; see Appeal 2919/07 State of Israel – Committee for Atomic Energy vs. Edna Guy Lipel, p.d. 64(2) 82, and paragraph 42 of the ruling:

The extent of the revelation: the law contains four conditions:

  • the existence of facts that were concealed from the plaintiff
  • the facts are significant and central to the claim
  • The plaintiff was unaware of these facts for reasons beyond his control
  • The plaintiff could not have prevented these reasons by taking due case

See Yehudai, page 204 and 1164/04 Herzliya vs. Yitzhaki, 5 Dec 2006. And note, the ruling states facts and not law, and so lately becoming aware of one’s legal rights is not considered retroactively becoming aware.

Furthermore, the facts required for the plaintiff to turn to the tribunal were known to her in fact long before the argument broke out on her retirement in 2013. The plaintiff claims a right to compensation for a number of inventions that she invented during her employment, the last being in 2006 at the latest. Dr Levy was aware of her contribution back then, and also was aware that TEVA had filed patent applications for these inventions.

In light of the above, the tribunal concludes that whichever date one considers as the period at which Dr Levy could have sought compensation, over seven years has passed and the complaint is thus aged.

Application of Section 9 of the Statute of Limitations

The Applicant added and claimed that even if the complaint has aged under section 6 of the Statute of Limitations, the defendant has admitted her right in section 2.2 of the agreement, and that some of the right___________________________________. Consequently, the Statute of Limitation should be calculated from when the defendant acknowledged her right.

Section 9 of the Statute of Limitations states that:

If the defendant admits in writing or before a court, whether during the seven year period or subsequently, that the plaintiff has rights, the period for the Statute of Limitations starts with that admission; and an action that pays out some of the rights is considered as such an admission.

In this section, the term ‘admit’ excludes an admission that accompanies the Statute of Limitations.  

expiredThe defendant denies the allegation that the conditions of Section 9 should be implemented. TEVA argues that to reset the clock, they have to admit that the complainant has the right to turn to the tribunal, and has to admit that there is both an employee invention and a lack of agreement regarding appropriate compensation. TEVA considers that these have to be clearly and explicitly stated, both formally and in terms of content. They argue that this remains the case even if some compensation is paid by the defendant.

time out

Under Section 9 of the Statute of Limitations, the new period starts notice. Since the Complainant submitted her case for compensation for her worker invention on 20 April 2015, the notification restarting the clock has to have been submitted in the previous seven years. So the question is whether there was such a notification within the relevant period, such that the seven years have not passed.

Section 2 of the Statute of Limitations states that aging alone does not cancel the right. The question is whether the respondent’s behavior can be considered an admission, in the sense of Section 9 of the Law, that revives the plaintiff’s claim? The tribunal does not consider this to be the case. One should remember that the applicant’s right to sue depends on the fact that there is no agreement between the parties regarding compensation. Thus any time that the defendant claims that there is an agreement, he does not accept the right of the Applicant to turn to the tribunal, and this cancels the authority of the tribunal. The result is that not only does he not agree with the right to file a complaint with the tribunal but he denies the right of the tribunal. Paragraph 3.3 of the draft retirement agreement  that was offered in the negotiations is not an admission of the right to file a complaint to the committee. The draft agreement states “and will not have further monetary demands beyond that paid by TEVA. This means that the claim for compensation is a claim that cancels the committee’s authority.

The Relative Strengths of the Employee and Employer

tug of war.jpg

The Applicant claims that the Statute of Limitations requires that the understanding that the worker should request compensation for the employee invention close to when the invention was conceived forces the worker to enter into a fight with the employer. Such a fight could risk the future employment and this means that the employee is in a weakened position with respect to the employer.

In general, the employer-employee relationship favors the employer, as Head of the Supreme Court Aharon Barak stated in Appeal 6601/96 AES Systems  vs. Saar, p.d. 44(2) 850, paragraph 12:

Not only this. In the contractual relationship, the employer and the employee are not equals The Employer generally has the upper hand, and can dictate the terms of the employment. Judge Berenson discusses “the Employees weakness with respect to the employer who dictates employment terms”  (Appeal 4/75 Berman vs. The Office for Lorry Transport Pardes Chana –Carcur “Amal”” ltd [12] on page 722. The national Labor Court of Appeal stressed that “labor law assumes a basic condition that there is a fundamental lack of equality between employer and employee (re Checkpoint [29] page 312. It will be appreciated that this inequality changes over time. It is affected by the market and the workers’ unions. Nevertheless, as a principle one can state that the worker’s and the public  interest is to protect the employee’s creativity and work.

As to the assumption of inequality between employee and employer in the workplace, see. The words of the Head of Labor Court Steve Adler in Case 164/99 Dan Fromer s. Red-guard ltd. pd”a 34 294 (1999) paragraph 14:

Labor law takes it as granted that there is an inequality between the employer and employee and so certain clauses in the work contract are not upheld by the court, if one can assume that a reasonable worker would not have agreed to them without this coercion. This is similar to the worker signing a waiver of rights he is entitled to under labor law. It is stressed that as a rule, the worker signs such clauses out of lack of choice; since the worker wishes to be accepted to the workplace, since it is reasonable to assume that failure to sign would result in him not be employed.

However, alongside the determination that the worker is in a position of weakness, and the binding nature of the relevant legislation the case-law does recognize a legitimate employer interest, see Red-Guard paragraph 16:

 True, the Employer has his interests, and the worker, his interest. These interests are different from the public interest. However, we are not concerned in the interests of the parties. We are concerned with the legitimate interests of the parties. The legitimacy is determined by general considerations, principles and assumptions of the legal system. The legitimate public interest and the legitimateinterests of the parties are the same. Although one refers to thelegitimate interests of the parties, the intention is the public order in which some of the parties interests are defended and others are not.

It seems that an arrangement based on an assumption that the employee is always in a position of weakness vis a vis the employer will create undesirable results. The purpose of the Patent Law is to incentivize the parties – both employee and employer, to create employee inventions, whilst regulating the property rights of the employer and the monetary rights of the employee. The employee’s rights are protected by a contractual agreement that arranges them or by the Tribunal for Compensation. Section 131 of the Law obliges the worker to inform the employer of the service invention as close to the time of inventing as possible. Section 132(a) of the Law obliges the employer to inform the employee of whether or not they intend to take ownership of the invention within six month of the notification under Section 131.

The arrangement of the Patent Law chooses to incentivize the parties to reach an agreement as early as possible. Neither the language of the law nor the context imply a separation between the period for informing the employer and the time frame for compensation.

One should remember that the employer has a real interest in knowing the employee’s intention to seek compensation for the service invention. This may be significant and can affect the management of the company and should be reflected in the balance sheet. So there is an importance for the employer that there is a Statute of Limitations to prevent the issue of compensation first being raised many years later, which could surprise the employer and cause significant financial difficulties.

It should be noted that the section 134 rights are not cognitive and do not provide social rights requiring special protection see the Application for Compensation (preliminary requests) Gideon Barzani vs. Isscar LTD, 4 May 2015 paragraph 30:

 We consider that section 134 which provides compensation,  are not cognitive. These are not social rights requiring special protection. In this light, but in a different context, the District Court ruled in Appeal 1843/-1 S.G.D. Engineering vs. Baruch Sharon, 25 January 1993, that  the question of employee inventions is not a social right, but a right in the invention under the Patent law. The conclusion that the right is dispositive concurs with the general cognitive nature of the write in re Shocker as ruled by judge Heishin.

In Barzani paragraph 32 it is stated:

Since conceptually the right is not a social right that requires protecting, as testified by Section 135, the legislation did not decide a cognitive right to compensation similar to the right to be named as an inventor under Section 42 of the Law. In these circumstances, the lack of such a condition in the law forces the understanding that the tribunal gives way to any agreement. It is noted that Dr Shlomit Yanivski-Ravid who champions the cause that the employees rights should be cognitive, establishes in her book IP and Innovention at Work, Theory, Practice and Comparative Law 2013, that the law as it is, is dispositive and if there is a contractual agreement, the tribunal does not have the right to intervene (see pages 305, 311).

The Supreme Court decided not to intervene in our ruling on re Barzani See Bagatz 4353/`4 Barzani vs. Isscar ltd. 8 July 2015.

The legislative body chose to apply the regular Statute of Limitations to employee invention compensation. Had it intended something else, it would have written this into the Patent Law, as indeed, some other legal systems have done. Dr Levy has related to special laws in Germany and the UK.  There is also reference to the law in France, Switzerland and Austria. It is accepted that there is interest in the balances found in these laws but it is the job of the legislative body to consider this, and we can only advise the Knesset to consider these arrangements and to adopt them if it finds it appropriate to do so.

We conclude that the request for compensation was submitted too late and the request for a ruling is rejected.

Bearing in mind the conclusion and the relative resources of the parties, each party will bear their own costs.

As a final comment we note that the arguments put forwards by the parties were of great help to the committee in addressing the issues raised which were considered for the first time and the legal counsel of the parties (Richard Luthi for Dr Levy, and Shin Horowitz for Teva) were of great help in understanding and ruling this complicated case.

The decision is of interest and will be published with the names of the parties, but the sides will have seven days to request that certain details remain confidential.

Ruling in Tribunal for Employee Compensation Levy vs. Teva, 25 May 2017 ruling by Prof. Engelhard, (then Commissioner) Asa Kling and Professor Doron Urbach.


I accept that there should be a Statute of Limitations for claiming an employee right but I do not find this ruling particularly convincing in its analysis regarding cancellation of a patent. I think the correct perspective is that an issued patent has a rebuttable assumption of validity but it may be challenged at any time by bringing evidence of lack of novelty or inventiveness, and doing so does not so much as cancel a patent in the way that a trademark is cancelled, but rather it shows that the patent should never have been granted it demonstrates that it is invalid rather than invalidates.

Unipharm Requests Accelerated Examination of Pending Novartis Patent Application

May 7, 2017

novartisIsrael Patent Application No. 249922 is a divisional application of 205208 that was filed on 3 January 2017, and which claims priority from USSN 60/985,668 filed on 6 November 2007. Under Section 16, the filing of the divisional application was published on 29 February 2017.


On 4 January 2017, the Applicant received a Notice Prior to Examination under Section 18 and regulation 36. Examination has not started.

UnipharmUnipharm requested that the examination of the Application be accelerated under Section 19a of the Israel Patent Law. The request was supported by an Affidavit from Mr Zevulun Tomer, Unipharm’s CEO:

I affirm that if IL 249922 to Novartis AG is examined in due course, it will cause a delay in Unipharm’s development of a product that is a high priority. … Making the Examination special will prevent delays and costs and serves the public interest by making drugs more available at lower cost and by opening the market to competition.

EntrestoOn 2 April 2017, Novartis AG opposed the request. Their position was that the request was vague and did not fulfill the conditions of Section 19a(c). Novartis notes that Unipharm did not provide details regarding which drug they intended developing, and if their intent was to develop a generic version of ENTRESTO, Novartis noted that that product was protected by other patents, some of which were pending patent extensions, and so accelerating the examination of ‘922 would not have the allegedly desired consequences.

Novartis also noted that if an Opposition is eventually submitted against IL 205208 under Section 26 of the Israel Patent Law which published for opposition purposes on 31 January 2017, anyway under Commissioner Circulars 035/2017 and 020/2012, no extensions in the Examination of the ‘922 application would be allowed.  The Commissioner noted that on 23 April 2017, the period for submitting an Opposition was still open, so there was no need for him to address this theoretical issue. In response to Novartis’s counter-statement, Unpiharm reiterated their claims.

Section 19a(c) provides the situations where a third-party can request acceleration of a pending application to another:

(c) A person other than the applicant, and who is not associated with the applicant or works on his behalf, may submit to the Commissioner a detailed request along with an affidavit supporting the facts, for an accelerated examination of an application that was published under section 16A, if one of the following occurs: (1) There is an established concern that the examination of the application of the patent according to the set order may cause the applicant of an accelerated examination application, who works in the field of the invention, a delay in the development or in the production of a product or a process claimed in the patent application under this subsection. (2) Time elapsed since the submission of the request is unreasonably long under section 15 or from the day the request entered the national stage under section 48D, and taking into consideration any significantly lengthy time since the lapsed date up to the beginning of the examination of other application of the same type. (3) Public interest; (4) Extenuating circumstances which provide justification.

As established re Israel Patent Application 221842 J. L. Glatt Lift ltd, 14 June 2016: 

 The possibility of accelerating examination under Section 19a is an exception to the general rule regarding examination that is given in Section 9 and regulation 34:

Applying the exception is likely to damage the principle of the first to file is to be awarded the patent and is likely to damage the general quality of patent examinations. For example, prior art that is not yet examined could be overlooked.

It is clear that accelerating examination under Section 19a is reserved for extreme cases where it is justified to deviate from the normal order. The burden of proof is on the Applicant for  Accelerated Examination who is to detail his request and support it with evidence.

Unipharm’s request and Mr Tomer’s affidavit relate in general to Section 19a(c) but it appears that they intend part (1) which relates to ‘delays in developing or manufacturing a product’ that Unipharm intends to manufacture, and to part (3) that relates to the ‘public good’ that is served by greater accessibility to drugs, reduced costs and competition in the market.

Unipharm claims that under their work program, if a patent issues for the ‘922 application, this will prevent them developing and then manufacturing their product.  Unipharm’s affidavit details the managerial program and preferences. The Commissioner Asa Kling does not see any reason not to accept an Affidavit from a CEO who may be presumed to know the company’s plans. There is no need to cross-examine under Section 163a of the Israel Patent Law 1967, and if it should transpire that Unipharm have lied, this Affidavit could be used against them. Therefore, it seems that Unipharm have provided the appropriate support for their request as required by Section 19a(c)(1) of the Law for accelerated examination.

This is not the case with respect to ‘public interest’ under Section 19a(c)(3) of the Law. As explained in the Glat Lift case, accelerated examination under Section 10 is reserved for extraordinary cases that are important to the State of Israel in general. The Application and Affidavit do not point to such a specific condition. It does not explain how accelerated examination will result in competition that will bring about a drop in prices. As Novartis noted, it doesn’t even explain which market sector will have enhanced access. The Section 19a(c)(3) justification is rejected.

However, due to the Section 19a(c)(1) justification, examination of pending application 249922 will be expedited on payment of the relevant fee. Suspension or extensions will be permitted only in accordance with Section 19(a)(1) of the Law. No costs are awarded.


In this instance, as we are dealing with a divisional application, there is no danger of earlier filed not published art being missed due to the patent being examined out of turn. The Commissioner Circulars 035/2017 and 020/2012 explain Patent Office policy to examine divisional applications of opposed applications as fast as possible. There is a real danger that applicants for pharmaceuticals that are opposed will file continuations and divisionals to keep the patent application alive in an attempt to evergreen. So on balance, it seems that the request is reasonable and the Commissioner was right to grant it. If Novartis are acting in good faith, they should be interested in having their patent application examined as fast as possible. They have not provided a justification for delaying, such as wanting to wait for examination of a corresponding application to be concluded so that they can request allowance under Section 17c or similar.

With a justification under Section 19a(c)(1) it does not matter that the Section 19a(c)(3) request was denied. However, I don’t fully understand the Commissioner’s reasoning. If he considers that one has to be facing a drug shortage within an epidemic, that is one thing. However, I don’t think that one should have to explain how allowing generic competition lowers drug prices for the common good. This is self-evident and true for all drugs, and the underlying logic of free markets and really dates back to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Still, the Law does seem to require something extraordinary.

We note that Unipharm successfully handled this request themselves, without professional representation. This is not the first time that Unipharm have successfully fought inter-partes proceedings at the Israel Patent Office without using an attorney. Nevertheless, others are strongly advised not to follow their example.

Cancellation Proceedings Against an Israel Patent for a Modular Support Bracket

April 6, 2017

Figs for ACMoshe Lavi registered Israel Patent No. 157035 titled “MODULAR SUPPORT BRACKET”. A competitor, Zach Oz Air Conditioning LTD and Zach Raz filed to have the patent cancelled on grounds of invalidity. They seem to have botched the attempt, but I think that this ruling is a poor one.


In the past, Lavi has tried enforcing the patent against Zach Oz Air Conditioning LTD. (Back then, around 2004, I was engaged as an expert witness by Counsel of the Defence, Soroker Agmon. In my Expert Opinion, I argued what is known as ‘the Gilette Defense’ stating that the correct interpretation of the claims was much narrower than that which Lavi and his lawyers Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Bratz (Pearl-Cohen) was using and Zach Oz’ support bracket was not infringing. Furthermore, if one considered that Zach Oz’ brackets were within the ambit of the claims, the patent would not have issued in the light of the myriad of prior art shelf support brackets.  On the day of the trial, Lavi dropped the charges and Zach Oz agreed not to infringe the patent.

It was not the first time that Pearl-Cohen have tried to assert a patent against a competitor that was not infringing. They tried this in the US on behalf of Source Vagabond against Hydropak. In that instance, the New York District Court fined Pearl-Cohen and the lawyers actively handling the case $187,308.65. That ruling was then Appealed to and upheld by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals).

Frustrated by repeated bullying by Moshe Lavi and Pearl-Cohen, Zach Oz filed a cancellation proceeding against the Israel patent. Confusingly, their Attorney is called Pearl. It is not Zeev Pearl, but another practitioner.

Pearl-Cohen submitted a rather ambitious attempt to have the case thrown out as Zach Oz had not argued invalidity when accused of infringing, and Pearl-Cohen argued that this was a sort of in absentia estoppel since they could have raised the argument back then, and didn’t. The Commissioner threw that argument out, and allowed the cancellation proceeding to proceed.

The cancellation proceeding has now run its course and the following article Read the rest of this entry »

Discovery In Israel Trademark Oppositions

January 9, 2017

L’Oreal filed Israel trademark application no. 261691 for CARMILANE in class 3 covering cosmetics for hair care, namely shampoos, gels, foams, balms, creams, powders, oils, waxes, serums, lotions, masks; hair straightening preparations; aerosol products for hair care and styling, hair spray, hair dyes and bleaching products, products for protecting dyed hair, hair waving and setting products and essential oils. The application is a national entry of 1187174 under the Madrid Protocol.

The mark was allowed on 30 April 2015, and it then published for opposition purposes.

Sano Factories opposed the mark issuing, and among other evidence, submitted a survey and opinion by marketing researcher Reuben Harari that, from the question asked as a multiple choice option, led L’Oreal’s counsel (Dr Shlomo Cohen & Partners Law Offices) to assume that there had been an earlier survey that produced less than favorable results and that the survey submitted was an attempt to frame the question more favorably. Sano based this assumption with reference to a survey of their own that led to very different conclusions.

L’Oreal’s counsel requested that Sano  and the survey provider “New Wave Surveys” provide full details of the earlier survey. Their initial position is that that the duty of disclosure in legal proceedings is wide and the parties are obliged to make all relevant documents of record. To substantiate this position, they cited widely from the case-law.

On 15 November 2016, Sano’s counsel, Seligsohn Gabrieli & Co, responded that the survey provider is not party to the proceeding and so could not be ordered to provide anything. By its nature, any prior research to the survey that was conducted on behalf of the client that is not submitted is covered by attorney-client privilege and should not be disclosed. They further noted that L’Oreal claimed to have ordered a different survey themselves and so there was no justification for providing any wider survey. Sano’s counsel Seligsohn Gabrieli & Co finally noted that the patent office could have ruled a full disclosure of all relevant documents at any time and never did so, and there was no reason to justify them doing so at this late stage.

Cohen reiterated that the market researcher is obliged to reveal all working papers and raw materials that led up to the survey. Partial revelations by the Opposer’s counsel were damaging to the Applicants procedural and substantial rights.  In this instance where only part of the survey related evidence is made of record, there is a duty of candid disclosure of the rest of it, and no confidentiality. He denied that L’Oreal had conducted a separate survey and considered this irrelevant as to whether Sano was obliged to reveal their survey results in full.


Both parties accept that the Israel Patent Office can request disclosure of all documents for inspection in trademark opposition proceedings to enable the parties to relate to the issues with all cards played face up, however, this was contingent on legitimate concerns of the parties such as efficiency of the proceeding.

It should be remembered that the result of proceedings at the patent office, such as whether a mark be registered or not, has public interest in that a registered mark makes private property out of something hitherto in the public domain. This makes it desirable for all evidence to be in the open.

The considerations regarding the duty of disclosure of documents in trademark cases was ruled by the then commissioner, in Opposition to Patent 60312 Genentech vs. Bio Technology General Corp 24 June 1999 as follows:

The possible damage to the efficiency of the proceeding due to the time at which a request to make evidence available, the amount of evidence, its subject matter, the importance of the claim that the evidence is supposed to clarify, the evidential weight, the possibility that the opposing party can obtain the evidence himself and the aggravation it causes the opposing party.

In this instance, the evidence is market research which may or may not have been undertaken by the Opposer. The request is based on the Applicant’s assumptions that since the Opposer submitted one type of survey, there must have been another type that provided undesirable results. The adjudicator of IP rejects these assumptions as an appropriate basis for demanding disclosure of documents.

It is stressed that the parties are allowed to submit only positive evidence, so long as they submit each piece of evidence in its entirety and do not submit only parts of documents.  The Applicant is entitled to full disclosure regarding a market survey in terms of the questions asked, the breakdown of the population surveyed, the way the results were analyzed and so on. However, Ms Shoshani Caspi did not consider earlier preliminary surveys that may or may not have been conducted were ‘raw material’ that is indivisible from the survey submitted.

Ms Shoshani Caspi noted that the opposition had reached the end of the stage of submission of evidence and before the hearing, . She therefore considered that allowing the request would inevitably prolong the proceedings as the Opposer would be obliged to submit additional evidence. The Applicant would then wish to submit additional evidence and the Opposer would have the right to respond. This would inevitably drags things out and delay a ruling on the dispute. It may be assumed that the additional material is not extensive. However, it is not clear that this material (if it exists) has evidential weight regarding the market survey. The Applicant does not know if such a preliminary survey exists and if so, how it was conducted or what the results were so the Applicant cannot state with certainty that such a survey has evidential weight. Such a request creates unjustifiable work for the Opposer, as it damages their procedural and substantial rights.

The correct way to attack survey evidence brought by the opposing party is by conducting a counter survey. If one party considers that a survey was improperly conducted they should do a proper survey themselves to support their allegations. The present request seems to be a ‘fishing expedition’ for evidence.


The patent office considered that at the stage reached, it would create unnecessary and undesirable delays to allow such a request. In the scheduled hearing, the evidentiary weight of the surveys submitted will be considered and each side may attack the results of the surveys brought by the opposing party. The request is refused. No costs are awarded.

Requesting Enlargement of A Deposit of Costs

January 8, 2017

The Krasnyi Octybar and Rot Front Joint Stock Companies own four Israel trademarks: 184179, 182758, 182759 and 182763. Each covering a long list of goods in class 30, including such things as for waffles; confectionery for decorating Christmas trees; cakes; pastries; peanut confectionery; almond confectionery; pasty; cocoa; cocoa products; caramels [candy]; sweetmeats [candy]; liquorice [confectionery]; peppermint sweets; coffee; crackers; meat pies; farinaceous foods; candy for food; fruit jellies; marzipan; custard; honey; ice cream; sherbets [ices]; muesli; mint for confectionery; cocoa beverages with milk and coffee beverages with milk; coffee-based beverages, tea-based beverage, chocolate beverages with milk, chocolate-based beverages, cocoa-based beverages; lozenges; petits fours [cakes]; biscuits; pies; fondants; pralines; gingerbread; chewing gum, not for medical purposes; sugar; cake paste; confectionery; rusks; sandwiches; almond paste; tarts; cakes (Edible decorations for-); halvah; bread; tea.

Five companies including the Roshen Confectionery Corporation,  Dealer B&D International Ltd, Kjarkov Biscuit Factory, Dolina Group Ltd and Latfood Ltd have filed cancellation requests against these marks.

The marks owners have requested that the sum that the challengers are required to post as a guarantee against legal costs in the event that the mark owners prevail be increased by a further 130,000 Shekels, or by whatever sum the commissioner sees fit. The request was submitted together with 90 pages of appendices and a copy of an Affidavit from the legal counsel of the mother company, however the original Affidavit was not submitted. The challengers opposed the request to increase the guarantee. A hearing has been set for the 17th and 18th of January for cross-examining the various witnesses.

The background to the request for guarantees is two requests for cancellation of the marks. Roshen Confectionery Corporation and  Dealer B&D International Ltd have requested the cancellation of 184179, 182758 and 182759 trademarks, and the Kjarkov Biscuit Factory, Dolina Group Ltd and Latfood Ltd have requested cancellation of the 182763 mark.

Following requests for guarantees that were filed in March 2015, the Adjudicator of IP Ms Yaara Shshani Caspi ruled on 21 June 2015 as follows:

In light of the above, and considering all the circumstances of this case and the general considerations used to determine the magnitude of the appropriate deposit, the first two challengers are to jointly deposit 75,000 Shekels and the second group of three challengers are also to jointly deposit 75,000 Shekels, and this should be done within 21 days.

The present request includes suspension of the proceedings until the deposit is increased.

The Parties’ Allegations

The mark holder claims that increasing the deposit is required because following the original decision there have been changes in circumstances that warrant increasing the deposit. These new circumstances include the expectation of long and complex proceedings and a number of cross-examinations. Furthermore, the case is complex and it transpires that the costs are expected to be higher than originally anticipated. The additional costs are incurred by the two groups of challengers retaining separate counsel and making unnecessary requests. A further claim is that it was not previous clear but now is transparently so, that there will be a massive amount of evidence and documents and a hearing that will be conducted largely in Russian, requiring simultaneous translation. The mark owners nevertheless reiterate their opinion that the likelihood of challengers prevailing and the marks being cancelled are very slim. The amount of the deposit, standing at 150,000 Shekels, is too low and not proportional to the costs that will be requested if the cancellation attempts fail and so this is a classic example of where increasing the deposit is warranted.

Both group of challengers consider the request to increase the deposit should be refused since the ‘new circumstances’ were already fairly obvious when the original request for costs was made. The second group of challengers considers this to be a vacuous request filed in bad faith simply to stretch out the proceedings.


Ms Yaara shoshani Caspi did not consider that the circumstances had changed since the original request for a deposit was ruled on. For example, where there are five parties challenging two groups of marks it is not unpredictable that there will be lots of witnesses to cross-examine. Since the challengers are Russian companies, it was always expected that their witnesses would testify in Russian and simultaneous translation would be needed, as is the fact that there are two groups of challengers. The massive amount of evidence was also expected and Ms Shoshani Caspi considered that these grounds were all considered by her in her original ruling regarding the size of an appropriate deposit.

With regard to the likelihood of the challenges prevailing and the marks being cancelled, there is no way to consider the likelihood or otherwise of the challenges be successful at this stage since the witnesses have not been heard and have not yet been cross-examined. At least this is the theoretical state of affairs. Since the challenges are on the basis of inequitable behaviour in the original filings, there is a high level of proof that the challengers will be required to submit to establish their case since they will have to positively show that many years ago the mark holders intentionally appropriated marks that were not theirs.

Nevertheless, the fact that the challengers have a difficult task ahead is not justification to increase the deposit that they have already placed. There are no unexpected circumstances not considered in the original ruling considering the size of the deposit.

The request to increase the deposit is refused. However, Ms Shoshani Caspi does not see the request as indicative of inequitable behaviour designed to make the trademark cancellation proceedings unnecessarily complicated. that said, the mark owners should nevertheless pay costs to the challengers for requiring them to respond to this request. The mark owners will therefore may 1500 Shekels to the first group of challengers and a further 750 Shekels to the second group and will do so by 15 January 2016 or interest will incur.

In cancellation proceedings concerning 184179, 182758, 182759 and 182763 trademarks, Ruling on increasing size of deposit by Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi, 28 December 2016.