A companion for your ideas
With the European soccer championship about to start in June, it is interesting to note that an application for provisional measures pursuant to R. 206 UPCA was lodged recently based on EP 1 944 067. The patent relates to a technique of detecting an offside situation in a soccer match.
The Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) is one of the co-defendants.
The matter is pending under the official case number ACT_16267/2024.
An infringement action was lodged against Microsoft Corporation before the Central Division (CD) of the UPC. The matter is pending under case number ACT_18406/2024.
This appears to be the first infringement action lodged with the CD.
By way of background, Art. 33(1) UPCA establishes two possible venues for bringing an infringement action against a defendant that has its principal place of business outside the territory of the Contracting Member States: The infringement action against such a defendenat can be brought, at claimant’s choice, before (i) the local division or the regisional division of a state where the alleged infringement has occurred, or (ii) the CD. Thus, for defendants for which there is no venue in accordance with Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA, Art. 33(1) UPCA establishes an alternative venue (the CD) before which the action can be brought.
The EPO event “Bringing cleantech innovation to market”, a recording of which will be made available by the EPO shortly, addresses inter alia the EPO’s new economic study shedding light on the challenges faced by companies aiming to bring clean technologies to the forefront. The study was prepared by the EPO jointly with the European Investment Bank (EIB).
One important take-away for me was that the study affirmed how important it is for (young) companies to have IP to secure funding (also from, but not limited to, VC).
Please get in touch if you are in the process of setting up your own firm or have already done so, and want to learn more about the various types of IP that exist as well as existing initiatives available to financially support companies in the process of obtaining IP.
Both the EU design regulation and the EU design directive are likely to be modified in the near future. If you want to learn more, check out this very interesting webinar recording of the EUIPO.
One important aspect of the amendments is that (somewhat similarly to the changes made to the trademark regulation and directive a couple of years ago), the new regulation and directive will allow IP stakeholders to more easily obtain adequate design protection for designs that can be represented in a (modern) electronic register, without being necessarily limited to seven graphical representations per designs. Examples where this is important include video sequences.
Ever wondered how Easter Eggs are being created and delivered? Then you may want to check out the set of Easter-related patents on the website of the German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO).
In a recent decision 1 W(pat) 11/23, the German Federal Patent Court held that the German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO) has to establish a search report for a patent application that is deemed to be withdrawn, provided that applicant sets forth a legitimate interest in obtaining the search results. The decision orders the GPTO to establish the search report prior to expiry of the priority term.
This decision both reflects the importance of the official search results for applicants and corroborates the importance of the official search results to be established in due time.
By way of background, a German national patent application is deemed withdrawn (as in the decided case) inter alia when it serves as basis for a priority claim of (a) a further national German patent application or (b) a PCT application filed via the GPTO as Receiving Office without exempting the designation of Germany. Still, applicant can (and often does) have a legitimate interest in a timely search report even in cases in which a convention application was already filed. For illustration, it may be prudent in many cases for applicant to modify the claims and/or the overall disclosure of a (still further) convention application, taking into account the search results.
The EPO will accelerate opposition proceedings when an infringement or revocation action has been instituted before the UPC. See the EPO News of 22.02.2024 and EPO OJ 2023, A99. The EPO deems that “concluding the EPO parallel opposition proceedings swiftly fosters legal certainty and procedural efficiency, as well as high quality and uniformity in the European patent system.”
I am interested to learn whether divergence between the EPO and the UPC in parallel opposition/revocation proceedings can indeed be avoided going forward.
Various changes to the EPO’s fee structure will enter into effect on 01 April 2024. See the EPO’s News Website. Both the reduced fees for SMUs and the increase of some renewal fees have been widely discussed; the visitors of my website will have read about this on, e.g., Juve Patents, the Kluwer patent blog and various LinkedIn posts from valued colleagues working in the patent profession.
One issue that appears to have received less attention is that the EPO’s recent decisions also affect the administrative fees (which tend to receive less attention as compared to the fees associated with filing, search, examination, and renewals). Importantly, the fee for registering a transfer will be reduced to nil provided that the request is filed via MyEPO. See EPO OJ 2024, A5 – fee code 022, item 1.1.
While one might think that the present fee of 120 EUR is not a big deal, the EPO applies this fee per application or per patent, even if the same evidence for the transfer is used in all of the applications/patents. In the case of a merger or demerger of companies, registering the transfer of applications and patents (for the latter the patents during the opposition period or in oppositions) can often result in total administrative fees of several hundred thousand Euros in the currently active administrative fee regime.
It is rare for me to applaud the EPO’s fee structure and the continually increasing fee amounts, which occasionally make me wonder whether the EPO is about to price itself out of the market (in particular when compared to, e.g., the GPTO’s fees). The reduction in the administrative fee for registering a transfer, while triggered by the desire to incentivize the use of MyEPO, is in my view a great step, when considering how much work can be involved in checking the entitlement of the signatories of a transfer declaration (e.g., when a chain of authorisations needs to be verified to affirm the signatory authority of the signatories). The reduction in the administrative fee for registering a transfer, when filed via MyEPO, will make it much easier to convince applicants/patentees that it is generally a good idea to maintain the EPO register data aligned with material ownership when a transfer has taken place.
The German Federal Patents Court (BPatG) decision 20 W (pat) 8/23 dated 15 November 2023 illustrates how important it is that the identity of a party to the proceedings be clear from the outset. The BPatG affirmed that an opposition is inadmissible if the identity of the opponent cannot be derived from the opposition. In the decided case, a patent attorney signed the opposition brief and argued that he was the opponent. The BPatG did not concur with this reasoning.
The official headnote reads, in English translation:
“If a patent attorney files an opposition against a patent in his or her own name (also as a “straw man”), his/her role as the sole opponent must be clear from the information provided within the opposition period, either directly or by way of interpretation. The mere signing of the notice of opposition by the attorney, who usually acts on behalf of third parties, is not sufficient [to clearly indicate that he/she acts not as representative but as party to the proceedings].”
This signifies the importance of adding a passage as to the identity of the opponent in an opposition brief filed with the GPTO (which – other than the EPO’s form 2300 – does not provide an official form reminding the party of the information required for an opposition to be admissible).
In the judgment of 24 January 2024 in T‑537/22, the General Court (GC) held that a registered Community design for a building block of a modular system was valid. The GC affirmed the Board of Appeal’s decision which found that even if all the features of appearance of the product concerned by the contested design were solely dictated by the technical function of that product, within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the Community Design Regulation, the contested design could not be declared invalid as it fell within the exception protecting modular systems referred to in Article 8(3) of the Community Design Regulation (points 16 and 74 et seq. of T-537/22).
This judgment of the GC is the second judgment relating to the invalidity proceedings, with the GC highlighting the importance of Art. 8(3) of the Community Design Regulation in T-515/19. The recent judgment T-537/22 confirms (a) that registered designs can be powerful intellectual property assets, and (b) that Article 8(3) of the Community Design Regulation provides an exception of great practical importance applicable to various kinds of modular systems (and not only vehicle repair parts). This is in line with recital (11) of the Community Design Regulation which stipulates that “mechanical fittings of modular products may nevertheless constitute an important element of the innovative characteristics of modular products and present a major marketing asset, and therefore should be eligible for protection.”