NO NEED TO WAIT FOR MUNICH, ENGLISH PATENT COURT SAYS


Another short and sweet note from the LexisNexis Butterworths All England Direct subscription-only service: Canady v Erbe Elektromedizin GMBH and others, a Patents Court ruling yesterday by Mr Justice Laddie.

Canady owned a European patent designating the UK, which was opposed by Erbe before the European Patent Office (EPO). The EPO Opposition Division dismissed the opposition, whereupon Erbe appealed to the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. If Erbe won the appeal, the result of which was expected in July 2005, the Board was expected to remit the opposition for further consideration on its merits. Canady later brought infringement proceedings in the UK against the third defendant (a wholly owned subsidiary of O, a Japanese electronics company). The third defendant applied for either (i) a stay of the infringement proceedings until the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO's ruling or (ii) a stay pending the outcome of an application to join O Corp as fourth defendant. The third defendant’s application was neither opposed nor supported by the other defendants.

Laddie J dismissed the application, since there was was no basis on which to grant a stay. There was nothing to gain by staying infringement proceedings until the Technical Board of Appeal determined the future conduct of the opposition proceedings, while a stay pending the determination of the application for joinder was unnecessary since O’s defence was likely to be the same as that run by the third defendant.

EPO Board of Appeal members racing to determine a European patent opposition

The IPKat agrees that there would be nothing to gain from granting the stay -- unless prevarication and delay could be said to be part of a viable business strategy. It's just a shame, though, that the resolution of opposition proceedings before the EPO takes so long. This state of affairs is commercially damaging and stressful for patent owners and their opponents to cope with: urgent attention should be given to this deficiency in the patent system.

More delays here
NO NEED TO WAIT FOR MUNICH, ENGLISH PATENT COURT SAYS NO NEED TO WAIT FOR MUNICH, ENGLISH PATENT COURT SAYS Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, May 06, 2005 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. to all of the major RSS feed directories on the Internet.

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.