Getting a Handle on Israel Design Registration

March 26, 2017

Furnipart

Although there is a proposed Law in the works, in Israel, design registration follows the somewhat archaic Patent and Design Ordinance 1924 inherited from the British Mandate. Formally, only local novelty is required! In a Circular, Previous Commissioner Dr Meir Noam creatively interpreted the Law such that Internet publication in official Patent Office websites that are acceptable in Israel would be considered as published in Israel. As discussed in this blog, that Circular is arguably ultra-vires in that such a determination arguably requires at least Ministry of Justice regulations if not a change in the Law. The present ruling by Outgoing Commissioner Kling relates to this Circular.

This ruling concerns seven design registrations – 55598 to 55604 – all of which were titled ‘Handle’ and were filed on 20 May 2014 in class 08-06 for handles and hinges by Furnipart.

On 22 March 2015, the Applicant received an Office Action that alleged that the design were lacking in the novelty and originality required by Section 30(1) of the Patent and Design Ordinance 1924 since the designs were identical to those registered in the name of the Applicant in Europe which were registered and published prior to submission of the Applications in Israel.

In addition to the 55602 registration that was submitted to the EPO on 18 October 2013 and which published on 15 November 2014, all the applications were submitted on 21 February 2014 and published on 26 March 2014.

The Applicant failed to respond to the Office Actions in the period specified in Regulation 28 of the Design Regulations, and on 23 June 2015, a reminder was sent warning the Applicant that failure to respond within 30 days with a request for a retroactive extension would lead to the applications being considered abandoned.

On 10 August 2015, the Applicant sent a response in which he claimed that the designs were, indeed registered in Europe, but apart from the publication on the EPO website, there was no publication in Israel. The Applicant claimed that the Israel Application was filed within the six month time frame of the European filings which is within the grace period from the first filing (Denmark) given in Section 52a(1) of the Ordinance.  Consequently, the European filing date should be considered the effective filing date in Israel.

On 13 August 2005, the Applicant was sent a notice that stated that further examination required payment of the extension fee, and which referenced Circular M.N. 69 from 25 December 2008 and to Section 53(2) of the Ordinance, noting that the Applications did not, claim priority.

On 9 September 2015, the Applicant was sent a second Office Action clarifying that under Circular M.N. 69, an Internet publication is considered as a publication that is published in Israel and so the Applications are contrary to Section 30(1) of the Ordinance. Similarly, it was noted that priority was not requested within two months of submission as required by Section 52(2) and so the effective filing date was the actual filing date in Israel.

On 15 December 2015 in light of the rejection of 9 September, the Applicant requested a hearing and this was geld on 18 April 2016.

Prior to the hearing, the Applicant submitted his main pleadings on 11 April 2016., during which he reiterated the above claims. He also alleged that Circular M.N. 69 differentiates between official and commercial publications and the European Patent Office publication was not meant to be published in Israel, even if it is accessible on line from Israel since the Israel design is not in force. Based on this ‘logic’, the Applicant claims that he is within the requirements of Section 52(a)1 of the Ordinance since there is a six month’s grace period.

 The Ruling

Section 30(1) of the Ordinance states:

The registrar may, on the application made in the prescribed form and manner of any person claiming to be the proprietor of any new or original design not previously published in Israel register the design under this Part.

So registration is contingent on no prior publication in Israel.

In Section 6 of Circular M.N. 69 from 24 December 2008, the previous Commissioner ruled that :

One can cite designs that have published on the Internet before the filing date in Israel, since there is evidence of their publication date.

To cite something against novelty of a design, section 7 of M.N. 69 relates explicitly to publications in patent offices abroad.

Use of Internet publications shall be done with the required care and only where the Examiner considers that he can rely on it indeed having published prior to the Israel filing date. For example, publication in databases in the official European patent office website OHIM, the USPTO and WIPO, etc. which publish the publication date of each design.

As far as relying on Internet publication, Examiners have been warned to cite these with due care – see the 51593 and 51594 Tequila Cuervo ruling from 9 June 2013, particularly paragraphs 44 and 45, and the ruling concerning various designs to Naot Shoes (1994) ltd published on 1 June 2016 

The same required care regarding the publication date, content and likelihood of Israel based surfers seeing the publication was considered in paragraph 10 of the 45452 Sejec Vanja ruling published on 28 February 2012: 

The language of Section 30(1) of the Ordinance states ‘… not having published earlier in Israel. This does not require that anyone has actually seen the publication…such was always the interpretation, even prior to the Internet age. The question is whether the publication was accessible. See for example the Appeal 430/67 Sharnoa ltd. et al. vs. Tnuva et al. (1968):

“The law regarding prior publication in a book of this type is based on the book being found in a place accessible to the public, such as a public library is considered sufficient publication, since one can assume that in this manner, the design reaches the public knowledge”.

In light of the above, one cannot accept the Applicant’s allegation that the previous publications are not novelty destroying, since reason that Patent Office Internet accessible databases are considered publications is the ease with which one can verify the publication date. This is certainly the case where the applicant does not deny the trustworthiness of the site and of the listed publication date, only whether Israelis would have access to inspect there.

Priority Date

The Applicant claims that despite the earlier publications that are novelty destroying for the applied for designs, the effective filing date in Israel should be considered as being the actual filing date in Europe.

Section 52(a) states:

If a design owner submits a request to register a design that has previously been filed by himself or by  his predecessors in title, a request to file in one or more friendly states (henceforth priority), he may request that as far as sections 30(a) and 36 are concerned, that the earliest priority date will be considered the filing date in Israel if all the following conditions are met:
(1) The Israel Application is submitted within six months of the earliest priority; and
(2) A priority request is submitted within two months of filing.

Firstly, it is stressed that contrary to the Applicant’s claims, Section 52 that the priority date is determined with reference to Sections 30(1) and 36, i.e. with respect to novelty and earlier publication. This does not mean that where a priority claim is made, that the Israel application automatically is awarded the priority date.

In this instance, the previous applications were filed on 21 February 2014 and then in Israel on 20 May 2014, i.e. within the six months grace period for which I priority request can be made. However, filing within six months of the prior application is insufficient since the second clause requires that the Applicant makes a priority claim within two months of the Israel filing date.

On 21 October 2014, this two month period for requesting priority in Israel passed, the period for which the application can rely on the filing date of earlier applications with respect to Sections 30(1) and 36 passed without Applicant requesting priority.

The Commissioner does not agree with the Applicant that the mere filing of an Application in the period provided for in clause 1 is sufficient since Section 52 requires both conditions to be fulfilled: filing within six months and making a timely request for recognition of the priority date. These conditions are complimentary – section 52(a) states explicitly that it applies if all the following conditions are met. One condition being fulfilled does not waive the other. So there is consensus that merely filing within six months does not result in priority being recognized.

Since the full requirements were only met a year after the two month deadline, the Applicant is not entitled to the priority date.

In the hearing, the Applicant’s representative noted that section 54 gives the Commissioner the discretionary powers to extend deadlines in the regulations even retroactively. The Commissioner considers that this regulation does not give him the power to extend deadlines in the Ordinance itself, including extending the priority claim.

The Application is rejected and the designs will not register.

Ruling concerning Design Numbers 55598 to 55604 “Handles” by Asa Kling, 21 February 2017.

COMMENT

four candles  The classic 1976 Fork Handles sketch may be found here.


Unipharm Successfully Opposes Novartis Patent for Panobinostat Lactate Salts

March 26, 2017

PanobinostatThis ruling relates to an opposition against a patent application by Novartis for Panobinostat  which is a hydroxamic acid  that acts as a non-selective histone deacetylase inhibitor (pan-HDAC inhibitor).  On 23 February 2015 the drug received FDA accelerated approval for use in patients with multiple malignancies, and on 28 August 2015 it was approved by the European Medicines Agency for the same use.

The Opposer claimed that the drug was described in the Applicant’s earlier published PCT application and was thus both anticipated (known) and obvious. The Commissioner rejected the anticipation claim but accepted that in light of the earlier publication, it was obvious and lacked an inventive step.

Due to the ruling being rather interesting but only available in Hebrew, and since these Israeli rulings can and do have an effect on validity of corresponding patents elsewhere, I have translated the decision in full. At the end I have made some general comments.

Background

NovartisNovartis AG filed Israel Patent Application Number 195087 titled “ANHYDROUS LACTATE SALTS OF ANHYDROXY-3-[4-[[[2-(2-METHYL-1HINDOL-3 YL)ETHYL]AMINO]METHYL] PHENYL] – 2E-2-PROPENAMIDE AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING THE SAME” as a national phase of PCT/US2007/070558 that was filed on 7 June 2006 and claims priority from US 60/804523 and US 60/869993, two US provisional patent applications filed in June and December 2006 respectively. The Israel national phase entry was submitted on 3 November 2008 and, on allowance, published for opposition purposes on31 October 2012.

UnipharmUnipharm opposed the application on 3 January 2013. Subsequently, on 26 June 2013, Novartis requested to correct the application and, since neither Unipharm nor anyone else opposed this, the application was corrected and this ruling concerns an opposition to the amended application.

The parties submitted their claims and evidence and a hearing was held Read the rest of this entry »


Squaring the Circle and Regulating the IP Profession in Israel

March 24, 2017

I was privileged to participate in a ’round table’ at the Israel Patent Office on Tuesday, on the topic of regulating the Patent Attorney profession. In this article I am going to refer to people without giving their titles such as Dr, Adv. and Patent Attorney, since most people were entitled to two or three such terms, but some aren’t and I don’t want to misrepresent anyone.

Perhaps instead of round table, Quad or Quod would be a better term as there was no table in evidence, and the chairs were laid out in a square, with the Commissioner Asa Kling, Assistant Commissioner Jacqueline Bracha and a legal liaison person from the Ministry of Justice along one side; the  various patent attorneys and the odd lawyer present, being arranged along the other three sides in an open ח shape.

basic instinctThe lack of a table and the open square was, in my case, a little distracting, as opposite me was a peroxide blond streaked patent attorney in a dress with slits up both sides who kept crossing her legs and seemed to be appealing to my Basic Instinct.

Kfir Luzzatto was looking younger than ever, and seemed to have restored his hair by self-hypnosis and meditation. I was thinking that his wife Etty was looking young enough to be his daughter and must also be using self-hypnosis and meditation, and then realized that it was his daughter, Michal, who is the fifth generation of this family firm.

There was a healthy sprinkling of sole-practitioners and senior partners of smaller offices, including Ed Langer, Daniel Feigelston, Simon Kahn, David Agranot, myself, Sinai Yarus and Erez Gur.

There was a number of representatives of Reinhold Cohn including Ronnie Benshafrut and Michal Hackmey. Gal and Amit Ehrlich and Maier Fenster represented their practice, there were some representatives of the Ministry of Justice, Tal Sines from Haddassit, someone from the tech transfer company of one of the universities, and a transcriber who taped the entire meeting. Unfortunately, Ofir Alon of the Technion tech transfer company who has just been appointed the new Commissioner of Patents was absent.

The meeting was friendly and constructive. It highlighted the general perspective of the larger firms that comprised attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys but could not have both as partners and needed creative solutions to practice, versus the smaller firms that felt that some of the regulations under discussion would make it difficult or impossible for them to continue as sole-practitioners. Read the rest of this entry »


More Coffee!

March 23, 2017

EdenFollowing on the heels of the Izhimis family feud, we now report on a competing marks proceeding between Abu Shukra Import Export and Marketing Ltd and Strauss Coffee B.V.

Again, this relates to Turkish coffee. On 2 May 2013, Abu Shukra filed Israel TM application number 255526 in class 30 shown alongside.

This ruling relates to all over packaging designs being used as trademarks and to branding concepts. to my mind, it also raises issues of monopolies and market abuse, but this is beyond the competence of the adjudicator and commissioner to relate to, although I think judges might see things differently.

22263EliteOn 16 July 2014, but before Abu Shukra’s mark was examined, Strauss filed Israel TM Application No. 266680 for Coffee, roasted coffee, roasted and ground coffee and coffee substitutes, all in class 30, and also Israel TM Application No. 266683 for Turkish Coffee, roasted Turkish coffee, roasted and ground Turkish coffee and Turkish coffee substitutes, all in class 30. Strauss Coffee’s marks are shown alongside.

[At this stage we note that Strauss Coffee owns the Elite brand among many others. Strauss employees 14,000 people in 20 countries. The empire was built on their Turkish coffee brand, but they also now own Sabra, the leading hummus brand in the US, are partners with Yotvata dairies and Yad Mordechai Honey – MF]. Read the rest of this entry »


Benjamin Barish, z”l

March 22, 2017

ben barish

It is with sadness that we note that on Thursday, March 15, 2017, Benjamin Barish passed away at the age of 91.

Ben was born in Detroit, Michigan, and served as a sailor in the U.S. Navy at the end of World War II. After receiving an electrical engineering degree, Ben worked as a patent Examiner in the U.S. Patent Office from 1947-1952.

After receiving his law degree from George Washington University, he worked as a patent lawyer in government and corporate practice.

In 1963, at the age of 38, he made Aliyah with his Israeli wife Bruria, and registered to practice before the Israeli Patent Office, receiving Patent Attorney license 29. We note that this was before the Israel 1967 Patent Law was legislated.

Ben Barish was licensed to practice in Israel and the US (before the USPTO, Washington DC and Michigan Bars).

I believe that Ben Barish then joined Reinhold Cohn which was a small firm at that time, but subsequently set up his own office in the early 1970’s.  Itzhak Rachailowich and Jonathan Patentkin who both trained under Ben Barish spoke highly of him. As was typical of his generation, Ben Barish used to dictate patent applications and had secretaries to type them up!

Ben Barish begat Mark Friedman who begat Gal Ehrlich, and then, in one of the incestuous relationships so common in our profession, at the turn of the millenium when Gal Ehrlich set up his firm, Barish moved in with and became of counsel to it. Being also an Attorney-at-law, he made sure to have a separate entrance from Ehrlich, but the offices were interconnected through a door.

In the brief period I trained at Ehrlich a couple of decades ago, Ben Barish stood out as being a mensch. He was generous with his knowledge and experience. Apparently he continued to prosecute patent applications until well into his late 80s.

May he Rest in Peace.


New Israel Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Appointed

March 19, 2017

Ofir AlonThe Minister of Justice Ayelet Shaqued has appointed Attorney and Patent Attorney Ofir Alon as the new Israel Commissioner of Patents, Trademarks and Designs to replace Commssioner Asa Kling who is coming to the end of his six year tenure.

Ofer Alon has degrees in Computer Science and Law from Haifa University. He qualified in IP Law in the Law Offices of Richard Luthi where he worked until 2006 and then became the IP Director and In-House Counsel of “On Track innovations”. Since 2010, Adv Alon has served as the head of Intellectual Property for the Technion’s R&D Tech Transfer Company.

The appointment follows the advice of the Committee for Finding a Suitable Candidate that was headed by Ms Ami Palmor, Director of the Ministry of Justice. Other committee members include Ilan Ram the Director of the Senior Civil Servants Organization, the Chief Scientist Avi Hasson, Professor Orit Fishman Afori – Dean of the Law School of Michlelet Minhal and Academic Representative and Retired Justice Izaak Engelhard serving as the public representative (which seems innappropriate to me – judges can represent the judiciary. The public is best represented by the layman. Maybe in this instance, a local serial inventor?).

According to the press-release, the committee were impressed with his developed views and vision regarding the Patent Office, its activities and its challenges, and with his plans for its international activities.

Comment

We note that with the appointment of Outgoing Commissioner Asa Kling the make up of the committee remained confidential. This led to rumours of cronyism between the judge allegedly chairing the committee and Judge Kling, the commissioner’s father. I cannot comment on whether these rulings were well founded or baseless, but was very impressed with the outgoing commissioner’s rulings.

In this instance, the identity of the committee members has been published. We see this as a welcome step towards greater transparency. We are pleased that the committee were impressed with Adv Alon’s plans, however the press-releases do not explain what these plans are. We also do not know whether any other candidates were considered and if so, who the other candidates were. What was clear was that the published advertisements in the newspapers gave very short deadlines from responding, raising suspicions that this was a political appointment. A candidate with vision and proven management skills seems a very good idea. He will however also require judicial competence.

Mover and Shaker Kim Lindy claims to have helped Ofir Alon receive his appointment to the Technion Tech Transfer Company. However, she does not allege to have influenced his appointment as commissioner.

In general, I am impressed with Shaqued’s judicial appointments and attempts to broaden the Supreme Bench to be more representative and heterogeneous. I also think the Commissioner should be more or less formalistic in his approach to IP rulings. That said, I have no ideas what Ofir Alon’s views are regarding IP issues or indeed, and other legal or political issues.

The past two commissioners have revolutionized the patent office, and it is now fully computerized. There is pending legislation concerning designs, and proposed legislation to put the profession of patent attorneys onto a stronger legal footing. The patent office is now a profit generating, efficient and professional body. We wish the new commissioner luck and hope he takes the organization forwards to new heights.

 


Reinstatement of IL 122846 to Tyco Fire and Security rejected

January 11, 2017

The fourth renewal of Israel Patent No. 122846 to Tyco Fire & Security was not paid by the deadline of 4 January 2012. A request for reinstatement together with an affidavit was submitted on 9 November 2016, following an earlier request without an appropriate Affidavit that was filed on 1 August 2016 which was rejected in a ruling of 4 August 2016, that without an affidavit such a request could not be considered and that the date of resubmission with an Affidavit would be considered the date of submission. The submission of 1 August included an update that the renewal fee had been paid and a request for reinstatement without any reasons.

On 9 November 2016, an affidavit by Michael Lahat, an employee of Visonic, was submitted. Mr Lahat claimed that Visonic had transferred the rights of the subject patent to the present owners back in July 2013. He further claimed that he was a member of the IP committee of TYCO and consequently, could testify on behalf of the company.

When the renewal fee was due, an employee of Visonic informed the Israel Representative that the company intended to renew the patent themselves, without assistance. In practice the renewal was not accomplished and no explanation was provided. The employee in question left the company hack in November 2013, but prior to her leaving, the rensponsibility for paying renewals was transferred to CPI. In July 2013, this and other Visionic patents were transferred to Tyco. The transfer of ownership was recorded in the Patent register on 31 December 2014, but by this time, the patent in question had already lapsed over a year earlier.

Close to what would have been the fifth renewal date had the patent not lapsed (years 18-20), on 4 January 2016, CPI [MF- Probably CPA – Computer Patent Annuities] tried to perform the renewal, but, since the patent had lapsed, were unsuccessful in this attempt. In March 2016 the renewal company informed the patentee that the mark had lapsed. The attempt to  revive was submitted eight months later.

Section 60 of the Patent Law 1967 states that there are  three conditions for restoring a patent subject to public opposition:

  1. that the payment was not made due to reasonable causes
  2. That the Patentee had not wanted the patent to lapse
  3. That the  request to reinstate was filed as soon as the patent lapsing was known to the applicant or to his representative

The Deputy Commissioner Ms Jacqueline Bracha was not convinced that these conditions were met since it was not clear why the fee was not originally paid in a timely manner since the instructions given to the former employee were not made of record.

The fact that details of the patent were provided to the renewal company does make it clear that the patentee did not want the patent to lapse, so the second requirement is fulfilled, although the after a delay.

No suitable explanation was provided for months passing from when it was discovered that the patent had lapsed until the affidavit was filed.  In this regard it is noted that the patentee was an Israel company that was not difficult to communicate with. That said, even if the patentee was a foreign entity there is no justification for eight months passing in the modern age with modern communication channels.

Since two out of three of the essential conditions were not met, the request for reinstatement is refused.