1 TOPIC III - PATENT INVALIDATION PROCEDURES EU-CHINA WORKSHOP ON THE CHINESE PATENT LAW HARBIN, 24-25 SEPTEMBER 2008 Dr. Gillian Davies.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
By David W. Hill AIPLA Immediate Past President Partner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Overview of the America Invents Act.
Advertisements

Rule-Making Book II EU Administrative Procedures – The ReNEUAL Draft Model Rules 2014 Brussels, May th Herwig C.H. Hofmann University of Luxembourg.
> AOAIOIP September 9, 2004, Cleveland September 10, Cincinnati EPO oppositions Christophe Saam.
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 1 America Invents Act (AIA) Implementation in 2012 Peter D. Sabido Intellectual Property Attorney Kolisch.
The German Experience: Patent litigation and nullification cases
Appeal Practice Before Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
The Role of Patent Attorneys
IPR Litigation System & Recent Case in Korea Hee-Young JEONG Judge of Daejeon District Court, KOREA April 22, 2015.
China on the way to a high-technology country: The legal policy perspective Stefan Luginbuehl Lawyer, International Legal Affairs.
AIPLA Annual Meeting 2014 Bifurcation before the UPC Dr. Jochen Pagenberg Attorney-at-law, Munich/Paris Past President EPLAW Prinzregentenplatz
Introduction to the Unified Patent Court
A Comparative Analysis of Patent Post-Grant Review Procedures in the U
The EPO and the Procedures
LANGUAGE AND PATENTS Gillian Davies Montréal, July 2005.
Meyerlustenberger Rechtsanwälte − Attorneys at Lawwww.meyerlustenberger.ch European Patent Law and Litigation Guest Lecture, Health and Intellectual Property.
The Unitary Patent One single patent covering 25 EU members October 2013 Rodolphe Bauer, Frédéric Dedek, Gareth Jenkins, Cristina Margarido Patent Examiners,
Institut der beim Europäischen Patentamt zugelassenen Vertreter Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office Institut des.
J.A.Kemp & Co. London Munich Oxford. FICPI ABC MEETING 2007 EPC 2000 Alan M. Senior 30 May 2007.
Patent Protection in Europe
Protecting your knowledge and creativity, the basis of your success. Patents in European Union national, European, unitary Presentation for.
1 Patent Law in the Age of IoT The Landscape Has Shifted. Are You Prepared? 1 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
Patent Application Procedures in Europe by Dr. Ulla Allgayer Patent Attorney in Munich Germany.
Seminar Industrial Property Protection Prague, 4 June 2003 Patent Protection in Europe Heidrun Krestel Liaison Officer Member States Co-operation Programmes.
PATENT OPPOSITION AND STRATEGY Essenese Obhan, Obhan & Associates.
Heli PihlajamaaLondon, Director Patent Law (5.2.1) Clarity - Article 84 EPC.
Post-Grant & Inter Partes Review Procedures Presented to AIPPI, Italy February 10, 2012 By Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin & Szipl, P.C.
© 2008 International Intellectual Property June 22, 2009 Class 6 Patents: Multilateral Agreements (Paris Convention); Economics of International Patent.
Appeals in patent examination and opposition in Germany Karin Friehe Judge, Federal Patent Court, Munich, Germany.
Yoshiki KITANO JPAA International Activities Center AIPLA Annual Meeting, 2014 IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting Seminar Post-Grant Opposition.
1 Workshop on the Directive 96/61/EC concerning (IPPC) Integrated pollution prevention and control INFRA Public participation & access to environmental.
ENFORCEMENT OF PATENT RIGHTS IN EUROPE The Hungarian way Zsolt SZENTPÉTERI S.B.G.&K. Patent and Law Offices, Budapest International Seminar Intellectual.
Institut der beim Europäischen Patentamt zugelassenen Vertreter Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office Institut des.
© 2004 VOSSIUS & PARTNER Opposition in the Procedural System by Dr. Johann Pitz AIPPI Hungary, June 2 – 4, 2004 Kecskemét.
Jerzy Jendrośka Energy security and legal requirements for environmental protection, public involvement and transboundary co-operation Scientific support.
Institut der beim Europäischen Patentamt zugelassenen Vertreter Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office Institut des.
About the Amendment of the Patent Law of China Yin Xintian WAN HUI DA Law Firm & Intellectual Property Agency 17 April 2013.
Michael Fruhmann Dr. Michael Fruhmann EBRD Project Ukraine 29/30th March /31/ Procedural fairness and the EU Remedies Directive – an overview.
Towards improvement: Institution of appeal in public procurement – topical procedural and evidentiary issues Kyiv, April , 2012 Oleksandr Voznyuk.
New Ex Parte Appeal Rules Patent and Trademark Practice Group Meeting January 26, 2012.
Revisions to Japanese Patent Law Before the law was revised, a Divisional Applications could not be filed after a Notice of Allowance 2.
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Post Grant Proceedings Before the USPTO and Litigation Strategies Under the AIA Panelists:David.
Administrative Law The Enactment of Rules and Regulations.
Agreement on Patent Litigation. Jan Willems Still going strong.
“THE UNITARY PATENT AND THE UNIFIED PATENT COURT: A PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVE” Prof Dr Paul L.C. Torremans School of Law University of Nottingham.
Wang Jing & Co. 敬海律师事务所 WANG JING & CO. Mr. WANG Jing 王敬 Managing Partner 管理合伙人 October 2013 Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in.
Chris Fildes FILDES & OUTLAND, P.C. IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting AIPLA Annual Meeting, October 20, 2015 USPTO PILOT PROGRAMS 1 © AIPLA 2015.
OEPM The European Patent with unitary effect: Gateway to a European Union Patent? Perspectives from non-participating member States. Raquel Sampedro Head.
Takeo Nasu JPAA International Activities Center AIPLA 2015 Mid-Winter Institute IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting Seminar Updates of Post Grant.
Case Study based on Case C-416/10 Krizan Workshop on EU Law on Industrial Emissions Budapest, 3 June 2013 Dr. Christoph Sobotta, Chambers of Advocate General.
Oppositions, Appeals and Oral Proceedings at the EPO Michael Williams.
1 Patent Claim Interpretation under Art. 69 EPC – Should prosecution history be used to interpret the patent? presented at Fordham 19th Annual Conference.
Derivation Proceedings Gene Quinn Patent Attorney IPWatchdog.com March 27 th, 2012.
Prosecution Group Luncheon Patent October PTO News Backlog of applications continues to decrease –623,000 now, decreasing about 5,000/ month –Expected.
Trends Relating to Patent Infringement Litigation in JAPAN
European Patent Attorneys Chartered Patent Attorneys Trade Mark Attorneys Practical approaches to appeals before the European Patent Office Paul Chapman.
The Third Revision of the Chinese Patent Law State Intellectual Property Office of P.R.C Dec
Oppositions, Appeals and Oral Proceedings at the EPO.
EU-China Workshop on the Chinese Patent Law 24/25 September 2008 Topic IV: Legal Consequences of Invalidity of a Patent Prof. Dr. Christian Osterrieth.
The Community Trade Mark (CTM) System. The Legal Framework Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark Council Regulation.
Patents Around the World: India Dr. Rajeshkumar Acharya.
Current Situation of JP Patent based on Statistics (from view point of attacking pending and granted patents) Nobuo Sekine Japan Patent Attorneys Association.
Oral proceedings all’EPO in presenza di terze parti: la procedura e il comportamento in udienza 27 Aprile 2016, Bologna - Per seminario AIPPI Marco Conti.
Bulgarian experience in the field of Unitary patent protection Mariana Tsvyatkova Patent Office of Bulgaria Director Legal Directorate PATENT OFFICE OF.
16/20/11/09 – EU Civil Patent Enforcement HG Patent Rights in the EU – The Civil Enforcement Perspective Heinz Goddar Boehmert & Boehmert.
The influence of the Rules of Procedure on the decisions of the boards of appeal Apr-18 The influence of the Rules of Procedure on the decisions of the.
Nick Reeve Reddie & Grose LLP
ENFORCEMENT OF PATENT RIGHTS IN EUROPE The Hungarian way
The OHIM Sabina Rusconi, institutional affairs and external relations department, OHIM Roving Seminar on the Conmunity Trade Mark System in China,
SPCs and the unitary patent package
Gordon HUMPHREYS Chairperson of the 5th Board of Appeal
Presentation transcript:

1 TOPIC III - PATENT INVALIDATION PROCEDURES EU-CHINA WORKSHOP ON THE CHINESE PATENT LAW HARBIN, SEPTEMBER 2008 Dr. Gillian Davies

2 PATENT INVALIDATION PROCEDURES IN EUROPE 1. UNDER THE EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION (EPC) 2. UNDER THE EU PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PATENT COURT

3 1. PATENT INVALIDATION PROCEDURES UNDER THE EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION 1. THE OPPOSITION PROCEDURE 2. THE APPEAL PROCEDURE 3. NEW LIMITATION AND REVOCATION PROCEDURE UNDER EPC ACCELERATED PROCESSING AT THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE

4 THE OPPOSITION PROCEDURE Opposition is a central administrative procedure for examining the validity of a granted European Patent at the request of a third party It takes place before an “Opposition Division“ It applies to all states in which the patent has effect It is contentious: Opponent v. Patentee Arts EPC

5 Within 9 months of the publication of mention of grant of the patent Permissible even if the patent has lapsed or surrendered In 2006, 2,987 oppositions filed WHEN CAN OPPOSITION BE FILED?

6 WHO CAN OPPOSE? Any natural or legal person No requirement of “ interest “ But NOT the patentee (but see new procedure for limitation under A. 105a EPC 2000) NB Intervention of assumed infringer permitted

7 GROUNDS OF OPPOSITION Not patentable because: Not new Not inventive Not susceptible of industrial application Does not have a “technical“ character Insufficient disclosure Added subject-matter Art. 100 EPC

8 DECISIONS Decisions to reject the opposition, to revoke the patent or to maintain it in amended form may only be taken on grounds on which parties have had an opportunity to comment Usually after at least one communication “Oral proceedings” must be held before decision if requested by a party Open to appeal Arts. 113, 101 and 116 EPC

9 THE APPEAL PROCEDURE Appeals lie to the boards of appeal of the EPO from decisions of the departments of the first instance The boards are judicial in nature: “expert courts of great persuasive authority” Appeals have suspensive effect Right to Oral Proceedings (Art. 116 EPC) Decisions are final (but see new petition for review by Enlarged Board under A. 112a EPC 2000)

10 PARTIES TO APPEALS The Appellant(s) – “adversely affected” The Respondent – as of right Interveners – infringement actions Third Party observations possible No cross-appeals; each party must appeal separately Art. 107 EPC

11 Notice of appeal must be filed within two months of first instance decision and appeal fee paid Grounds of appeal (reasoned arguments) must be filed within four months These time limits cannot be extended Art. 108 EPC FILING AN APPEAL

12 LIMITATION AND REVOCATION UNDER EPC 2000 A patentee can request that the scope of protection of his patent be limited by an amendment of the claims, or that the patent be revoked completely. The request may not be filed while opposition proceedings are pending Art. 105a-c and R EPC 2000 New procedures  Limitation and Revocation

13 LIMITATION AND REVOCATION UNDER EPC 2000 (2) The procedure: 1. Is available for the whole life of the patent: it applies to the patent as granted or amended in opposition or limitation proceedings before the EPO 2. Has ab initio effect 3. Is ex parte 4. Limitation is by amendment of the claims 5. The final decision applies to all designated states 6. Opposition proceedings take precedence over limitation proceedings 7. The decision may be appealed New procedures  Limitation and Revocation

14 ACCELERATED PROCESSING AT THE EPO Accelerated processing is available in opposition and appeal proceedings 1. Opposition: where an infringement action in respect of a European patent is pending before a national court, a party to the opposition proceedings or the national court or competent authority may request accelerated processing at any time. The EPO must then take first action within 3 months. EPO notice dated 17 March 2008, OJ EPO 2008, pp On appeal

15 ACCELERATED PROCESSING ON APPEAL 2. Appeal: Parties to an appeal and the courts and competent authorities of contracting states may request accelerated processing. Justifications for dealing with an appeal rapidly include: - pending or envisaged infringement proceedings - where potential licensing agreements hinge on the outcome of the appeal - where an opposition with accelerated processing is the subject of an appeal The Board of Appeal decides whether or not the case is urgent; if so, the case is given priority EPO notice dated 17 March 2008, OJ EPO 2008, pp

16 When a European Patent is granted and/or maintained in opposition or appeal proceedings by the EPO a bundle of national patents comes into existence which can be attacked before national courts This is a major disadvantage of present system INVALIDATION OF EUROPEAN PATENTS BY NATIONAL COURTS

17 2. PATENT INVALIDATION PROCEDURE UNDER THE EU PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PATENT COURT Draft Agreement on the European Union Patent Court, Brussels, 14 May 2008

18 THE ORGANS OF THE COURT 1. The Court shall comprise a Court of First Instance and a Court of Appeal 2. The Court of First Instance shall comprise a central division as well as local and/or regional divisions Draft Agreement, Art. 4

19 THE COMPETENCE OF THE COURT The Court will have exclusive competence in respect of inter alia: (a) actions for actual or threatened infringements or for a declaration of non-infringement; (b) actions or counterclaims for revocation Draft Agreement, Art. 15

20 ALLOCATION OF CASES 1. Direct actions for revocation or declarations of non- infringement shall be brought before the central division, provided no action for infringement has been initiated between the same parties on the same patent before a local or regional division 2. The plaintiff is not obliged to initiate opposition proceedings before the EPO 3. If an action for revocation is pending before the central division, an action for infringement may be initiated before a local or regional division. The latter may either stay the proceedings or refer the action for decision to the central division 4. An action for declaration of non-infringement pending before the central division shall end if an infringement action is initiated Draft Agreement, Art. 15a

21 Thank you very much for your attention! ANY QUESTIONS? © Gillian Davies September 2008