Prof. Dr. Alexander von Mühlendahl, J.D., LL.M.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Design Case Law of the Court of Justice. Dr. Catherine Jenewein Former Legal Secretary to Judge Azizi, General Court, Court of Justice of the European.
Advertisements

Design Case Law of the Court of Justice.
CHAPTER 4 THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM AND COURT JURISDICTION DAVIDSON, KNOWLES & FORSYTHE Business Law: Cases and Principles in the Legal Environment (8.
The fundamentals of EC competition law
Last Topic - Difference between State and Nation
The Role of Patent Attorneys
Prof. Dr. Sabine Schlacke Institute for Environmental and Planning Law The Europeanization of the access to justice in environmental matters – the German.
What’s the STANDARD OF REVIEW Got To Do With It?.
Governance of the European Patent System: A Separation of Powers Approach Professor Peter Drahos The Australian National University, Canberra and Queen.
February 19, Recent Changes and Developments in USPTO Practice Prepared by: Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) Robert J. Spar, DirectorJoni.
Meyerlustenberger Rechtsanwälte − Attorneys at Lawwww.meyerlustenberger.ch European Patent Law and Litigation Guest Lecture, Health and Intellectual Property.
Biotechnology Assignment 7 Patent Law. Case study 1 –Federal Supreme Court Germany (Bundesgerichshof), 27 March 1969 (Red Dove), IIC, 1970, 136 –Answer.
Open Competition Intellectual Property Specialists (AST 3/ AD6) OHIM, Alicante – Spain Open for application: October 31st 2013 Apply before : December.
Post-Grant Proceedings Under The America Invents Act Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association “Washington in the West” Conference January 29,
Administrative Law Jody Blanke Professor of Computer Information Systems and Law.
Seminar Industrial Property Protection Prague, 4 June 2003 Patent Protection in Europe Heidrun Krestel Liaison Officer Member States Co-operation Programmes.
Post-Grant & Inter Partes Review Procedures Presented to AIPPI, Italy February 10, 2012 By Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin & Szipl, P.C.
1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association Updates on the USPTO Chris Fildes AIPLA-JPAA Joint Meeting April 9, 2013.
Towards improvement: Institution of appeal in public procurement – topical procedural and evidentiary issues Kyiv, April , 2012 Oleksandr Voznyuk.
Jurisdiction 3: Original & Appellate. Major Classes of Jurisdiction Legislative jurisdiction –Congressional (Federal) –State –Municipal Executive Jurisdiction.
Administrative Law The Enactment of Rules and Regulations.
Agreement on Patent Litigation. Jan Willems Still going strong.
Protecting your knowledge and creativity, the basis of your success. Trademark registration in Poland: European and national rights Intellectual.
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.
Certification System for Environmental Judges An Indonesian Judiciary Experience Prof. DR. Paulus E. Lotulung, SH.
Nebraska Liquor Control Commission Hobert Rupe Executive Director.
Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. Permission Required for Reproduction or Display. The Federal Judicial System: Applying the Law Chapter.
European Patent Attorneys Chartered Patent Attorneys Trade Mark Attorneys Practical approaches to appeals before the European Patent Office Paul Chapman.
1 TOPIC III - PATENT INVALIDATION PROCEDURES EU-CHINA WORKSHOP ON THE CHINESE PATENT LAW HARBIN, SEPTEMBER 2008 Dr. Gillian Davies.
International Intellectual Property Prof. Manheim Spring, 2007 Trademark - Madrid Copyright © 2007.
The Court system and The Constitutional Court system of Korea KH LEE )
THE PIONEERING EU TRADEMARK AND DESIGN PRACTICE Seminar on Intellectual Property Rights Budapest September 6, 2005 Jean-Jo Evrard NautaDutilh (Brussels)
The Supreme Court The court’s procedures – During two – week sessions, justices hear oral arguments on cases and then meet to make decisions on them. –
Chapter 2: Court Systems and Jurisdiction
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY BUILDING SUMMER SCHOOL FEBRUARY 2008
South Carolina Supreme Court
Environmental Courts in Sweden and the Reformatory Procedure
Regulatory Interface with the Judiciary: Experience from the West
U. S. District Court Perspective on Patent Adjudication Barbara M. G
The OHIM Sabina Rusconi, institutional affairs and external relations department, OHIM Roving Seminar on the Conmunity Trade Mark System in China,
The Board of Appeal of the CPVO Martin EKVAD, President of the CPVO
The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
How the OHIM will handle Madrid filings
US Constitution Article III: Federal Judiciary
Funding of the Dutch Judiciary Performance based budgeting
Business Law Chapter 3 Court Systems.
The Role of Patent Attorneys
First instance review in Slovenia
Judicial Training Intellectual Property Law Seminar 20–21 September 2017 Bucharest UPC Where are we? Willem A. Hoyng.
Meeting of International Authorities under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) : QUALITY SUBGROUP 8th Informal Session.
EFFECTIVE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS
Jody Blanke Professor of Computer Information Systems and Law
CHALLENGES TO VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS AND REGISTERED VOTERS
Jody Blanke Professor of Computer Information Systems and Law
Presentation - Who is who & what is your motivation
Responsibility and accountability The role of judicial and administrative inspection bodies 4th april, 2018 – Rodolfo de Serpa.
The impact of article 47 CFREU on national caselaw between general principles and sectorial Application Jacek Chlebny, professor at the University of Łódź,
Intellectual Property in front of the CJEU
Women’s Access to Justice: A Guide for Legal Practitioners
US Constitution Article III: Federal Judiciary
US Constitution Article III: Federal Judiciary
A Business-Oriented Overview of Intellectual Property for Law Students
Figure:
Jurisdiction Original vs. Appellate jurisdiction
Gordon HUMPHREYS Chairperson of the 5th Board of Appeal
ON EUROPEAN TRADEMARKS AND DESIGNS
PRESENTATION OF THE BOARDS OF APPEAL
Chapter 1 Test Review.
The Other 66 Percent: Appeals Before the PTAB
Presentation transcript:

Intellectual Property and the Judiciary Boards of Appeal of OHIM (the future EUIPO) Prof. Dr. Alexander von Mühlendahl, J.D., LL.M. Visiting Professor, CCLS, Queen Mary University of London Rechtsanwalt

The Boards of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (ex OHIM) Overview 1. The nature of the Boards of Appeal 2. Functional continuity 3. The review function of the Boards of Appeal 4. The filter function of the Boards of Appeal 5. Some conclusions Bardehle Pagenberg 10.05.2018

1. The nature of the Boards of Appeal The EPO as „model“ Differences between EPO and EUIPO The judicial or quasi-judicial nature of the Boards of Appeal Bardehle Pagenberg 10.05.2018

2. Functional continuity Functional continuity between Boards of Appeal and the Office‘s decision-taking units (Examiners, Opposition Division, Cancellation Divisions, Register administration) Bardehle Pagenberg 10.05.2018

3. The review function of the Boards of Appeal De novo examination or „review“ Scope of review competence New facts and evidence Bardehle Pagenberg 10.05.2018

4. Filter function of the Boards of Appeal 4. 1 4. Filter function of the Boards of Appeal 4.1. The case load of the Boards of Appeal 4.2. The outcome of appeals 4.3. The appeals to the General Court figures standards of review new facts and evidence new arguments/issues outcome 4.4. The appeals on points law (pourvoi) to the Court of Justice Bardehle Pagenberg 10.05.2018

4. 1. Case load of the Boards of Appeal Appealable decisions vs 4.1. Case load of the Boards of Appeal Appealable decisions vs. appeals filed (ex parte/inter partes) 2010 2570 396 / 2174 2011 2622 667 / 1955 2012 2339 644 / 1695 2013 2602 890 / 1712 2014 3284 1240 / 2044 2015 2611 946 / 1655 Bardehle Pagenberg 10.05.2018

4. 2. Outcome of appeals (2015) Total number of decisions. 2911 4.2. Outcome of appeals (2015) Total number of decisions 2911 Ex parte 1113 Deemed not filed 98 Confirmed 785 Reversed in full 175 Reversed in part 55 Inter partes 1798 Deemed not filed 110 Confirmed 916 Reversed in full 329 Reversed in part 182 Settled 261 Bardehle Pagenberg 10.05.2018

4.3. Appeals to the General Court Figures (new cases – ex parte/inter partes) 2010 48 / 159 2011 42 / 178 2012 45 / 200 2013 52 / 244 2014 97 / 192 2015 60 / 215 Bardehle Pagenberg 10.05.2018

4.3. Appeals to the General Court Standards of review New facts and evidence New arguments/issues Outcome Bardehle Pagenberg 10.05.2018

4.4. Appeals on points of law (pourvoi) to the Court of Justice Figures (new cases – exparte/inter partes) 2010 11 / 20 2011 9 / 28 2012 1 / 36 2013 5 / 30 2014 5 / 28 2015 7 / 52 Bardehle Pagenberg 10.05.2018

4.4. Appeals on points of law (pourvoi) to the Court of Justice Standards of review Outcomes Bardehle Pagenberg 10.05.2018

5. Some conclusions The success story The shortcomings Improvements (speed vs. substantive and procedural „Sorgfalt“, transparency, Grand Board) Comparative analysis – EPO, CPVO, TTAB, PTAB Bardehle Pagenberg 10.05.2018

Information & contact vonmuhlendahl@bardehle.de Bardehle Pagenberg 10.05.2018

Feedback: Privacy Policy Feedback
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
About project: SlidePlayer Terms of Service

© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc. All rights reserved.