Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP’s Post

No shortcut for service of Unified Patent Court complaints on defendants in China and its Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: The Court of Appeal's second panel (Presiding Judge Rian Kalden, Judge Ingeborg Simonsson, Judge Patricia Rombach) has sided with the Munich Local Division and TCL against NEC Corporation (represented by BARDEHLE PAGENBERG's Dr. Tilman Müller). NEC argued that some Europan TCL entities had been served and that TCL's IP litigation chief Lawrence Wu was therefore aware of the complaint. They sent him the complaint by email, but neither the lower court nor the Court of Appeal considered that an acceptable form of service, at least not for now and not without more clarity as to why Mr. Wu would be the correct addressee. The same applies to the proposal to just put a notice on the wall of the Munich Local Division. Now, it's not totally impossible that alternative process of one kind and/or the other will be deemed acceptable at a later stage, but the CoA wanted to make sure that no defendant would be deprived of rights it has under Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 and the Hague Convention. This means that NEC must try service under the Hague Convention first, and in practice it may mean that they can propose alternative forms of service only if Hague service has been unsuccessful after six months. https://lnkd.in/dEYcpe6D

𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝗘𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀: 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗨𝗣𝗖 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 👩⚖️ The doctrine of equivalents ensures that the patent protection does not fail due to petty adherence to the literal meaning. The scope of protection is extended to embodiments that achieve the same technical effect and are discoverable and recognizable as equivalent by a person skilled in the art. 🔄 ⚙ We have compiled the most important German judgments in an overview. We use such overviews for internal training and to be able to react quickly to legal questions from clients. The Unified Patent Court has also issued an order on equivalent patent infringement already through its Local Division in Hamburg (see no. 25 of our overview). It ruled that the question of equivalence may not be reduced to the attacked embodiment having the same effect as the patented invention. Decisively is how the effect is achieved. While this order was issued within accelerated proceedings, the final decision is yet to come. The Local Division in Brussels also acknowledged that the doctrine of equivalents has not been finally developed by the UPC and may lead to discussions even within national proceedings. So, it remains exciting to see how the UPC will ultimately decide. Copies of judgments can be requested by e-mail to patent@heuking.de or by private message. We also welcome feedback on other relevant decisions. #technology #football #electronics #economy #law #legal #lawyers #lawyer #litigation #lawfirm #intellectualproperty #attorney #ip #patent #patentlaw #iplaw #patentlitigation #patentinfringement #heuking

When the statute allows ‘any person’ to file an opposition, we should acknowledge that strawman filings will be there. What’s critical is the merit of the actual opposition filing - and we have seen that strawman oppositions are equally strong and have forced applicants to modify/ abandon their claims. So, the only filter should be- whether the opposition filing has strong technical content and how it analyses the pending claims.

https://lnkd.in/eFNBvK3w: Pleased to share insights into the recent changes in the appeal rules at the European Patent Office (EPO). These updates are a significant step towards streamlining the appeal process, showing that the EPO aims to handle appeal cases more efficiently and swiftly. My latest article explains how these new rules are set to impact the way appeals are managed and their broader implications. Stay tuned and watch this space!

Adv. Ran Vogel, a partner in the Intellectual Property department of our firm, conducted a thorough and fascinating analysis of the Israeli Supreme Court decision that concluded a revolution in the field of Patent Law and Unjust Enrichment Law. The article, published on the website of the Patent Attorneys Association, presents and analyzes the central question that stood before the Supreme Court: whether Patent Applicant who deceives the Patent Office in order to obtain a patent, may be liable under the Israeli law of unjust enrichment to pay competitors who delayed entering the market, a restitution of the Applicant profits gained at their expense as a result of this deception.   The purpose of this overview is to provide a brief and concise analysis of the Supreme Court's ruling in the ongoing debate and, most importantly, to examine its impact on patent law. For the full article (in Hebrew) , click here: https://lnkd.in/dpiZzNRk

Unmasking the Myth: Benami Pre-Grant Oppositions and the Substance of Patent Disputes In recent times, the Indian Patent Office has found itself embroiled in a series of intriguing patent disputes, particularly those stemming from what some term as “benami” oppositions. These oppositions, shrouded in mystery and speculation, have raised eyebrows among patent practitioners. Allegations of proxy involvement, malicious intent, and strategic delays have become commonplace. Yet, despite the controversy swirling around them, the Patent Office continues to entertain these benami oppositions and rightfully granting individuals to challenge patent applications without revealing their identities unless compelled. However, amidst the tumult of legal wrangling and accusations, the Patent Office is rightfully focused on the merits of the opposition rather than the allegations, emphasizing the importance of substance over identity in patent disputes.

With the new Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court finally operational in 2023, Pieter Callens, together with Sam Granata, has published a new book “The Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court” with Wolters Kluwer International. The English-language book describes in detail the history and content of the new rules.   #eubelius #unitarypatent #UPC #intellectualproperty #unifiedpatentcourt 

The amendment of Sections 82 and 83 of the German Patent Act has fundamentally changed the time limits in patent nullity proceedings. The new provisions, which provide for a prompt referral to the court, are intended to improve procedural efficiency of the proceedings and to reduce existing legal uncertainties regarding the validity of patents. Despite the positive effects on the acceleration of proceedings, the strict time limit regime until the judicial reference is made poses a challenge for both courts and parties. This article written by Dominik Ho and Jakob Benedict Dandl examines the first experiences of patent law practice with the new designed procedural rules and analyses effects on infringement proceedings.   GRUR Patent 2023, 286   You can access the complete article by following this link : https://lnkd.in/gzcQPPux

This article examines the significance of receiving a Notice of Allowance from the European Patent Office, outlining the accompanying "allowed text" with proposed amendments. It stresses the importance of scrutinising these amendments to ensure legal compliance, as accepting them without review could jeopardise the patent's validity. The article suggests exploring alternative actions, like proposing amendments or discussing concerns with EPO examiners, to safeguard the patent's integrity. Read Graham Spenceley's full article to find out more. https://lnkd.in/erbz6FFm

On December 21, 2023, the State Council Order No. 769 announced the 'Decision of the State Council on the Amendment of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China'. The amendment came into effect on January 20, 2024, focusing on some provisions related to the right of priority in patents. This amendment introduced three specific stipulations related to priority rights in the Implementing Regulations, which has significantly refined and improved the priority right system. This alteration provides applicants with more opportunities to amend and remedy their rights of priority and offers a chance to rectify any defects in later submitted application documents based on the content of the priority right application files. Therefore, choosing Kangxin IP Platform, which stays abreast of these amendments and regulations, ensures you are equipped with the knowledge and assistance needed to navigate the patent application process in China's evolving legal landscape effectively. Kangxin IP Platform is committed to safeguarding the lawful rights and benefits of the applicants to the utmost extent. We look forward to assisting you with our expert resources. https://lnkd.in/gmFKhWB6