Will case law crystallize?

Today, it is back again to one of the topics regularly addressed on this blog, namely the statute of limitations for patent nullity actions in France (but not only!).

Matthieu Dhenne was kind enough to send me a brand new decision from the Paris Tribunal de grande instance (TGI) which, once more, sheds new light on this thorny issue.

The patent at stake is the French part of EP 1455756, to Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (MSD). The patent was granted on July 9, 2008. It was opposed by two generic drug manufacturers. At first instance, the patent was maintained in amended form, according to a decision dated December 3, 2010. The opponents appealed, and their appeals were dismissed by the Board of appeal in a decision dated July 17, 2014. The publication of the amended patent took place on September 23, 2015.

Soon thereafter, on December 2, 2015, Ethypharm filed a nullity action with the Paris TGI, requesting that the French part of the patent should be revoked.

Quite predictably, MSD argued that the nullity action was time-barred.

If one directly applied the recent case law of the Paris Cour d’appel (discussed here), this should be a winning argument. Indeed, the Cour d’appel has proposed that the five year-limitation period be computed from the date of grant of the patent. With this in mind, in this case, the limitation period would have ended on July 9, 2013.

But you and I know that things are not that straightforward, as the Paris TGI does not follow the case law of the upper court, and generally favors an in concreto determination of the starting point for the limitation period (see a recent example here).

Yet, in today’s ruling you will not find any protracted discussion of an in concreto starting point. Instead, the issue is disposed of in just one paragraph:

[…] It is only on [July, 7, 2014, i.e. the date of the Board of appeal’s decision] that the drafting of the patent which is sought to be revoked was stabilized and that Ethypharm was able to precisely know the content of the claims of said patent as well as all the facts making it possible for them to act, so that the action is not time-barred and is admissible. 

I must say I have mixed feelings about this.

My initial reaction was, oh no, you must be kidding me, there is now yet another way of determining the starting point for the limitation period? This is not legal uncertainty anymore, this is legal chaos.

A few seconds later, I thought, well yes, it does make sense after all, you can’t possibly be expected to shoot at a moving target. When a patent is modified during opposition proceedings, any appeal filed at the EPO has a suspensive effect, and thus it is only once the appeal proceedings are terminated that the content of the patent is final.

A party must act within five years from the date at which they knew or should have known that the patent at stake is a possible impediment for their current or future business activities, or else be time-barred (this is more or less what I understand to be the TGI’s usual position). And how can a party know this before the patent is even its final form?

However, this ruling raises more questions than it provides answers.

What if an opposition is rejected by the opposition division and the patent thus maintained as granted instead of as amended? Should the reasoning be the same? What if an opposition is filed by a straw man (which is allowable at the EPO) and there is thus an unverifiable suspicion that the nullity claimant itself may be the true opponent, in an attempt to artificially extend the limitation period by several years?

In his message to me, Matthieu Dhenne also noted that the court’s reasoning could be applicable to other situations: limitation proceedings, but also a prior nullity suit brought forward by a third party. Taking this one step further, he observed that a patent right can in fact be modified at any time and is therefore theoretically never “stabilized” until it expires (sometimes, it can even be retroactively “stabilized” only after its expiry). He thus suggested that the full consequence of the court’s reasoning should be that the limitation period can only start running at the expiry of the patent, so that the well-identified drawbacks of this limitation period should in practice never occur.

Matthieu added that there would thus be a complete parallelism between the limitation period for infringement actions and nullity actions. Accordingly, invalid patents would not be able to unduly hinder free competition.

Definitely an interesting suggestion, but is it really what the TGI had in mind? I am quite sure we can expect more surprises in future decisions.

Apart from this, the decision is worth the read beyond the admissibility part.

First, it turns out that the nullity claim was held ill-founded on the merits and thus dismissed. As the patent in suit is a pharma patent, this is already quite remarkable. A majority of pharma patents which are litigated in this country are revoked one way or another.

Second, the decision tackles the very interesting issue of plausibility.

There has been a significant trend in France for patents to be revoked when they are held to be of a speculative nature. See for instance previous posts here, here and there.

In the present case, Ethypharm argued that the patent was of the speculative kind, which resulted in insufficiency of disclosure and lack of inventive step.

Now may be a good time to have a look at claim 1:

A nanoparticulate composition comprising the compound 2-(R)-(1-(R)-(3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)ethoxy)-3-(S)-(4-fluoro)phenyl-4-(3-(5-oxo-1H,4H-1,2,4-triazolo)methylmorpholine, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, the compound having adsorbed on the surface thereof at least one surface stabilizer in an amount sufficient to maintain an effective average particle size of less than about 1000 nm; where “effective average particle size of less than about 1000 nm” means that at least 95% of the particles, by weight, have a particle size of less than about 1000 nm.

This drug composition is useful in the treatment of nausea and vomiting, especially those induced by a chemotherapeutic treatment. The short name of the active compound is aprepitant. According to the patent, the technical problem at stake was to improve the bioavailability of aprepitant. This is stated in the patent but no experimental test results are present, which led Ethypharm to consider that there was no evidence in the patent that the technical problem was properly solved.

Ethypharm also tried to use some of MSD’s posterior testing against them, by claiming that they proved that there were features missing in the patent which were essential for successfully implementing the invention.

The court was not convinced that there were indeed such essential features missing. The court also noted that there was a reference in the patent in suit to a prior U.S. patent disclosing the so-called “Nanocrystal” method, for making nanoparticles with a surface modifier adsorbed thereon, having an average size of less than 400 nm. This Nanocrystal patent also taught that such nanoparticles improve the bioavailability of poorly water-soluble actives.

Thus, said the court, the improvement in bioavailability provided by the nanoparticle form of aprepitant was plausible.

In such a case, the court continued, evidence which is external to the patent can indeed be taken into consideration for demonstrating that the technical problem is solved. The court then reviewed a number of articles and reports and was satisfied that the technical effect of improving bioavailability was well achieved.

In summary, this is an important decision for the fine-tuning of the appraisal of a speculative patent-type objection.

To me, the take-away message is that a reference in a patent to a prior art document disclosing a technical effect provides some plausibility that the technical effect is indeed achieved.

From drug crystals to crystal balls: could they possibly help us decipher future case law?

The patent survived other attacks of insufficiency of disclosure, extension of subject-matter and lack of inventive step. Quite remarkably, the main claim was in particular found to be non-obvious over the “Nanocrystal ” European patent of the same family as the U.S. patent mentioned above, which was used for supporting the plausibility of the technical effect.

The court held that:

[The “Nanocrystal” prior art] does not disclose chemical structures or features of drugs intended to be used by this process. It only mentions that it can be implemented with a large variety of medicinal substances, the substance having to be poorly soluble, that is less than 10 mg/mL, so that the skilled person does not know which actives […] can be tested with a reasonable expectation of success. He was all the less incited to do so that in December 2001, i.e. almost ten years after the priority date of [the Nanocrystal patent], the nanonization process, which has a number of constraints (in particular the heat released during milling may change the structure of the active substance and reduction to a very small size may create a problem of chemical and physical stability), was used on only four active substances (danazol, steroid A, compound WIN 63,394 and naproxene) with a verified effect on bioavailability […]. 

I have the uneasy feeling that there may be a contradiction here between the sufficiency and inventive step prongs of the court’s reasoning.

If the teaching of the Nanocrystal patent cannot be applied in an obvious manner to aprepitant, and if there are many technical uncertainties, why is it then not necessary for the MSD patent to contain evidence in the form of experimental tests showing that the process can in fact be effectively applied to this particular drug?


CASE REFERENCE: Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 3ème chambre 2ème section, January 26, 2018, Ethypharm SAS v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., RG No. 16/01225.

Should you do it?

In the case reported on today, two of the plaintiffs, namely one Korean company and its French subsidiary, are called I Do It. This a great name, which immediately suggested a title to me but also a guideline for this post: today’s question is indeed, if they do it, should you do it too?

European patent No. EP 1930982, relating to a “Horn array antenna for dual linear polarization“, was granted in 2010 to two individuals, Mr. Joon Im and Mr. Wan Ryu. In December, 2015, the patent was assigned to their company, I Do It (the Korean one).

Before the assignment, in October 2013, the French I Do It company commissioned a bailiff’s report in an exhibition. In June 2015, both the French and Korean companies filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Alden, a company based in Alsace, in front of the Paris Tribunal de grande instance (TGI).

The first interesting issue in the decision issued by the TGI relates to the admissibility of the infringement complaint. When the complaint was filed, in June 2015, I Do It did not yet hold any rights on the patent at stake.

The assignment was only executed in December 2015, and published at the French patent register in February 2016. What is more, the 2015 assignment did not contain any provision authorizing the assignee to sue for infringement acts performed before the assignment.

I assume that this point was raised by Alden during the written proceedings, which led the original patent owners and I Do It to execute an addendum to the assignment in February 2017, granting I Do It the missing authorization to sue for past infringement acts.

In view of article 126 of the Code de procédure civile, the court held that the complaint was admissible, since this legal provision makes it possible for an initially inadmissible complaint to be regularized up to the day the judgment is issued.

So, should yo do it too? Well I would certainly advise against initiating patent infringement proceedings on behalf of a company not holding any current or past right on the relevant IP. But, for once, French law appears to be quite flexible and little demanding in this respect.

For those who like to do it themselves: here is a patent application directed to an item comprising a piece of coal and an instruction manual. I quote: the benefit to the purchaser is the fun in reading the manual, and imagining that they can turn the coal into a diamond like one of the pictured ideas presented in the manual.

Second interesting issue, the bailiff’s report of October 2013. The important point here is that we are talking about a standard bailiff’s report, and not about a seizure (saisie-contrefaçon), which is the usual measure taken at the onset of patent litigation in this country.

The French company I Do It filed a request in front of the Bobigny Tribunal de commerce and obtained an order from this court authorizing a bailiff to go to an exhibition, verify whether an allegedly infringing antenna was presented by Alden there, inquire about the pricing and origin of the product, etc. The order was granted and the report drawn up by the bailiff accordingly.

The legal basis for the request and order was article 145 of the Code de procédure civile, which is a very general provision per which “if there is a legitimate reason, prior to any litigation, for preserving or establishing the evidence of facts on which the outcome of litigation could depend, legally admissible measures of taking evidence may be ordered upon request of any interested party, ex parte or in urgency proceedings“.

Alden argued that the inspection of the exhibition by the bailiff was in fact a saisie-contrefaçon and should thus have been requested under the special provisions of article L. 615-5 of the Code de la propriété intellectuelle. They thus requested the cancellation of the bailiff’s report.

The court held that “the mission [of the bailiff] did not comprise any measure relating to a saisie-contrefaçon, and besides the bailiff did not accomplish any investigations exceeding the scope of a report“. Therefore, the 2013 bailiff’s report was not canceled.

I must say that I am quite surprised by this part of the decision. Going to an exhibition, checking whether an allegedly infringing product is present, inquiring about the price and origin of the product… These are very typical steps taken during a saisie-contrefaçon.

Had the judges seen things this way, then it seems highly doubtful that they would have found that resorting to a bailiff’s report under the general provision of article 145 is a possible alternative to a true saisie-contrefaçon.

The reason why the appropriate legal basis for the investigation at the exhibition is so important is that the special rules of the saisie-contrefaçon are very different from the general rules of an article 145 measure. To name a few examples:

  • If I Do It had gone for a saisie-contrefaçon, they would have needed to place their request with a specialized IP judge in the Paris TGI, instead of a suburban court fully inexperienced in patent matters.
  • A request for saisie-contrefaçon would certainly have been denied by the specialized IP judge based on the facts at hand, as I Do It apparently did not hold any rights to the patent back in 2013.
  • Assuming that a saisie-contrefaçon had been performed, I Do It would then have had approximately 1 month to file a patent infringement lawsuit, or else the seizure (including the bailiff’s report) would have been automatically void. In contrast, by resorting to an article 145 investigation, I Do It was able to wait for almost 2 years before filing suit.

In summary, although the saisie-contrefaçon is often viewed as a powerful tool for patent rights holders to collect evidence, it also offers a number of guarantees to the defendant, which are not all necessarily present in an article 145 investigation.

So, should you do it too, i.e. should you consider an article 145 investigation as a creative alternative to the usual saisie-contrefaçon when faced with suspected patent infringement?

Well, this option is certainly worth considering. But I would certainly recommend extreme caution, as today’s decision is somewhat surprising and does not necessarily set a strong precedent.

Third and last interesting point: the assessment of infringement. Here, again, the case was unusual.

The plaintiffs’ argument was that Alden bought antennas from an Austrian distributor of I Do It’s products, made minor modifications and then marketed the antennas under their brand name. “Therefore“, I Do It argued, Alden’s antennas exactly corresponded to the product protected by EP’982; and exhaustion of rights did not apply as the products marketed by the defendant no longer exactly corresponded to those put on the market with the consent of I Do It.

Unsurprisingly, the TGI dismissed the infringement claim, as there was no demonstration of the implementation of the claimed subject-matter by the allegedly infringing antennas.

It is certainly not sufficient for a patent proprietor to assert that its own products are covered by a patent. Even this assertion, assuming it is relevant in a particular case, needs to be precisely demonstrated, claimed feature by claimed feature.

So here the conclusion is pretty clear: no you should not do it, i.e. you should never consider as a patent owner that you can do without a thorough, detailed, technical demonstration that the products at stake fall within the scope of a patent.

Before, concluding this post, I would like to say a few words about an exciting upcoming conference regarding the French statute of limitations for nullity actions in IP law.

Frequent readers of this blog know of course that this is a very hot topic these days.

The date is March 15, 2018, the time is 1:30 pm to 6 pm, and the venue is Paris, Assemblée nationale – no less. Here is a link to the program of the conference as well as the necessary information for signing up.

Should you do it, i.e. attend this event? Yes indeed, and as I will unfortunately be unable to be present, I would be most grateful if any attendee could provide us with the highlights of this afternoon.


CASE REFERENCE: Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 3ème chambre 3ème section, November 10, 2017, Seung Joon Im, SARL I Do It & I Do It Company Ltd v. SAS Alden, RG No. 15/10320.

One-two-three

Still warm from the press and courtesy of Matthieu Dhenne, come tidings of the fall of another important pharma IP, namely the Atripla SPC (Supplementary Protection Certificate).

Atripla is marketed as a pink tablet with “123” impressed on one side. It contains a combination of three anti-HIV drugs, namely efavirenz, emtricitabine and tenofovir.

The U.S. pharmaceutical giant Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (MSD) owns European patent No. EP 0582455, entitled “benzoxazinones as inhibitors of HIV reverse transcriptase“. The patent was filed on August 3, 1993.

Two SCPs were filed and granted in France based on the EP’455 patent, and on two successive marketing authorizations (MAs):

  • The first one, FR01C0012, was filed on April 10, 2001 and granted on May 18, 2001. It protected the active efavirenz per se. This SPC expired on November 20, 2013.
  • The second one, FR08C0021, was filed on May 27, 2008 and granted on November 20, 2009. It protects the triple therapy combination of efavirenz, emtricitabine and tenofovir (marketed as Atripla) and is set to expire on August 2, 2018.

On September 20, 2016, Mylan initiated legal proceedings against MSD in France, claiming that the FR’021 SPC is invalid. The Paris Tribunal de grande instance (TGI) issued its judgment on November 30, 2017.

The judgment is interesting both regarding the admissibility of the action and  the merits.

As far as admissibility is concerned, the nullity defendant claimed that Mylan was time-barred from requesting the nullity of the SPC.

As a first line of response, Mylan argued that the general statute of limitations in our Code civil, which provides a five-year limitation period for “personal or movable actions“, is not applicable to actions for nullity of an IP right. Unsurprisingly, the court disagreed, in keeping with recent case law at the first instance and appeal levels. The TGI made in particular reference to a trademark ruling by the Cour de cassation dated June 8, 2017. For the court, applying this ruling by analogy leads to the conclusion that an action for revocation of an SPC is indeed subject to the limitation period under ordinary law.

That being said, the real interesting point is the determination of the starting point for the five-year limitation period. Although there has been a lot of discussion (including on this blog) concerning the starting period for patent nullity cases, there has been no clear guidance for SPC nullity actions, as far as I am aware of.

MSD’s case was that the starting point for the limitation period was the publication of the SPC application. The court disagreed and set the following principles.

The starting point for the limitation period must be set to the day, determined in concreto, when Mylan knew or should have known, because it intended to market a generic version of the drug which received an MA on December 13 [2007], for the combination of [the] three actives, which is protected by the SPC, which represents an impediment for its business.

So, we all get the idea there – although a couple of words may be missing, which happens from time to time when your sentences are too long, and this is probably why my blog software keeps blaming me for using more than the recommended threshold of 25% of sentences containing more than 20 words.

The general principle of an in concreto assessment is in keeping with the TGI’s previous decisions in patent revocation cases. The court went on:

[…] Only the SPC matters as an impediment, and not the patent. 

One should not refer to the date of grant of the patent, since the validity of the patent is not challenged by Mylan, which acknowledges that the efavirenz active compound is the subject-matter of the invention protected by the EP’455 patent and then by the [FR’012] SPC which expired on November 20, 2013. 

Only the validity of the [FR’021] SPC […] is challenged […]. 

Thus the publication of the grant of the patent cannot be set as the starting point for the limitation period, as it would in fact require an unrealistic watch from stakeholders and is unrelated to the development of the project which gives standing to sue. 

Mylan’s standing does not derive from the publication of the title, be it the patent or the SPC, but from its concrete intent to market the same drug. 

In this case, they have to check that this intent to market the product does not infringe any IP, and if this is the case, to seek its revocation before launching. 

Watching patent or SPC registers cannot be required from stakeholders before they intend to develop a competing product. 

[…] In the present case, the first MA for Atripla […] was granted on December 13, 2007. In view of article R. 5121-28 of the Code de la santé publique, the generic company can only apply for an MA starting from the eighth year after the grant of the MA for the original drug, and cannot be granted one before ten years. 

Therefore, Mylan could not apply for an MA before December 13, 2015, and could not obtain it before December 13, 2017. As a consequence, the date at which Mylan’s standing can be taken into account is December 13, 2015, which is the date starting from which it could apply for an MA. Thus, Mylan is not time-barred as it had until December 13, 2020 to start legal action.

What is somewhat paradoxical is that the TGI calls for an in concreto appraisal but then defines what could possibly be a general rule for SPC cases, namely that the starting point for the limitation period is the date at which third parties may start applying for their own MAs.

We will need to wait for further cases to know for sure whether this is indeed a general rule or not.

Turning to the merits of the case, the discussion and the ultimate reasoning of the court are extremely similar to what can be found in the recent decision on Truvada, also reported on this blog a few weeks ago. 

Truvada is another anti-HIV drug based on the combination of tenofovir and emtricitabine. The SPC at stake in today’s decision relates to the combination of the same compounds, plus a third one, efavirenz. And the problems raised by this other combination are analogous.

According to article 3(a) of the SPC regulation (regulation (EC) No. 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council), an SPC “shall be granted if, […] (a) the product is protected by a basic patent in force“.

How to determine whether a product can be considered as being “protected” by a basic patent has been the subject of intense litigation and numerous rulings from the CJEU, which are mentioned in the TGI’s judgment. Again, readers of this blog can refer to the Truvada post, which contains a short summary of the most important CJEU case law prepared by Lionel Vial.

CJEU case law on the interpretation of the SPC regulation: each ruling always leads to more referrals.

In the present case, none of the claims of EP’455 explicitly recites the combination of the three active compounds of the combination. Instead:

  • efavirenz is covered by a generic formula in claims 1 and 5 and is singled out in claims 2 and 12 (as well as in claims 8 and 9 but in combination with other drugs different from tenofovir and emtricitabine);
  • tenofovir and emtricitabine are not cited in the patent;
  • claims 7 and 16 relate to the combination of a generic formula (covering efavirenz), or of efavirenz specifically, together with a nucleoside analog;
  • tenofovir and emtricitabine belong to this category of nucleoside analogs.

According to the court, this is insufficient to consider that the combination of the three active compounds is protected by the EP’455 patent pursuant to article 3(a).

Says the court:

It turns out that the description never explicitly cites either tenofovir or emtricitabine which are not identified in the EP’455 patent, be it individually or collectively in a composition. And in addition the specific combination claimed as an active product “efavirenz + emtricitabine + tenofovir” is not implicitly but necessarily and specifically taught in the description, and no indication makes it possible for the skilled person to select emtricitabine and tenofovir as nucleoside analogs. 

In fact, if I understand correctly, emtricitabine and tenofovir were not even identified and known yet as anti-HIV drugs at the filing date of the EP’455 patent.

Furthermore, the court refused to consider the claims relied upon by MSD (reciting nucleoside analogs) as “functional claims” because “they do not describe the structure which should be present nor the function that the second and third products should have in this structure“.

For the sake of completeness, the court stated that even if the claims were considered as functional, the four-step test established by the Dutch patent office would then not be satisfied. Again, this same test was discussed in the previous Truvada post, so I will not describe it again here.

As a consequence, the SPC was found to be invalid under article 3(a).

By way of overkilling, the court added that the SPC was also invalid in view of article 3(c) of the SPC regulation, per which an SPC “shall be granted if, […] (c) the product has not already been the subject of a certificate“.

In this case, another SPC had been granted based on the same EP’455 patent, namely the efavirenz SPC. MDS relied on the Georgetown CJEU decision (C 484/12). According to this decision, article 3(c) does not preclude the grant of one SPC for a combination of active ingredients, and another SPC for a single active ingredient, based on the same patent.

Nevertheless, according to the TGI, Georgetown is only applicable if the mono and combo products are separate inventions.

In one brief paragraph, the court then held that:

the combination of efavirenz with emtricitabine and tenofovir does not represent a separate invention which may give the right to a second SPC. For this second reason, SPC [FR’021] is invalid under article 3(c) of the regulation. 

Those readers in favor of pan-European consistency (which probably means most readers of this blog) will be happy to know that the TGI’s decision mirrors a similar ruling in the UK handed down on March 21, 2017, per which the corresponding UK SPC was declared invalid by Mr. Justice Arnold.


CASE REFERENCE: Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 3ème chambre 1ère section, November 30, 2017, Mylan SAS v. Merck Sharp Dohme Corp., RG No. 16/14466.

An electric dispute

When Matthieu Dhenne kindly sent me a copy of the recent judgment Quadlogic Controls Corporation v. SA Enedis, I immediately knew that it would contain a part on the limitation period for nullity claims, as this is one of his favorite topics.

But quite to my delight, when diving into the judgment, I realized that extension of subject-matter is also discussed at length. And it turns out that this is one of my favorite topics.

I will leave it up to readers to decide which favorite topic is more off-putting, his or mine.

Quadlogic is a New-York based company specialized in energy management products. They own European patent No. EP 1260090 to a System and method for on-line monitoring and billing of power consumption.

Enedis, previously known as ERDF, is a subsidiary of EDF, the public company turned private which is still responsible for distributing most of the electricity used in France. Enedis on the other hand is in charge of handling the electricity network.

One huge project that has been keeping Enedis busy for a number of years now is the replacement of traditional electricity meters by smart (and somewhat controversial) meters known as the “Linky” meters. By the end of 2017, 35,000 new Linky meters are supposed to be set up every day.

It is therefore a pretty big deal that Quadlogic stated that the Linky technology infringed the EP’090 patent. In 2015, a number of letters were exchanged between the parties, but no amicable agreement was reached.

Thus, Quadlogic filed an infringement suit in February 2016, after performing an infringement seizure in January. Enedis raised a number of defenses and in particular challenged the validity of the patent and requested its revocation.

At this point, Quadlogic replied that Enedis was time-barred from filing a nullity counterclaim – a classical defense nowadays. However, this time the Paris Tribunal de grande instance (TGI) disposed of the issue relatively quickly.

Although the patent was filed as early as February 2001, it was only granted by the EPO in October 2013.

The court held:

It is established that the nullity of a patent can only be requested as from the date of grant, namely October 9, 2013 so that the nullity requested by Enedis for the first time in its counterclaim of February 21, 2017 is admissible. No limitation period can thus be raised against Enedis. 

As a reminder, there is now a limitation period for nullity claims in this country, according to recent case law, which is 5 years. The starting point of the period is much debated, with diverging views between first instance and appeal judges.

However, it is now relatively clear that the starting point cannot be before the grant of the patent. At least the TGI and the Cour d’appel are on the same page on this – see a recent report here.

The court then turned to the merits of the validity challenge and reviewed the amendments made during examination.

1911 – when electricity was still a miracle.

Claim 1 of the patent reads as follows:

A system for monitoring energy usage on a power line comprising:
(a) an electronic microprocessor-controlled digital electricity metering device coupled to a power line and including a non-volatile non-battery-powered memory, wherein said metering device is operable to perform interval metering for each of a plurality of intervals, is operable to store in said memory data acquired by said interval metering for each of said plurality of intervals, in a manner that enables recovery of measurements for individual intervals of said plurality of intervals and is operable to receive a data request and transmit data in response to said request over said power line; and
(b) a data collector coupled to the metering device via said power line, the data collector being operable to receive data from and transmit data to the metering device over the power line; operable to store data received from the metering device over the power line, and operable to receive data from and transmit data to a remotely located computer.

The expression highlighted above was added during examination and was at the center of the court’s attention.

The court noted that the expression could not be found in any of the 63 original claims and thus turned to the description and drawings. Quadlogic apparently relied on a single short passage as a support, which the court thought was a little bit too light:

Quadlogic only quotes the first sentence of paragraph 132 in its submissions, namely: “Interval metering stores independent records of metering data for future recall”. 

And this single sentence in a patent comprising 60 pages of description, supposed to be the crux of the invention, does not mean that individual records of the metering intervals are made. It mentions the possibility of independent records without stating that there is a prior problem that the skilled person had to solve. 

This mention cannot be considered as supporting the added feature, which makes it possible for the invention to exist, since the metering, storing and recovering of metering intervals on energy consumption were known; this feature is the only novel one in view of the known prior art. Since the entire device was known except this feature which is the only one to confer novelty to the invention, in order to avoid extension beyond the content of the application, elements to support the invention itself must be found in the description and drawings. 

What is remarkable in this explanation by the court is that a feature added in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art seems to be subjected to a more thorough and strict evaluation than more innocent features. The EPO on the other hand usually does not make a distinction between novelty-conferring features and non-novelty-conferring features in the added matter analysis.

What is also remarkable is that the court did not simply look at the sentence in isolation, but took into account the general context of the entire patent. In this case, the supporting sentence is only recited in passing, without any statement of a technical problem to be solved. The way I understand it, in order for the invention to be redefined based on a specific feature, this feature must be originally identified as addressing a particular problem.

The court then delved into a more technical investigation.

This sentence “Interval metering stores independent records of metering data for future recall”  means that the recorded interval metering is independent from the values of counting energy consumption.  

The part of the sentence “for future recall” is much too elliptic to be admitted as supporting the recovery of measurements of individual intervals. It only refers to the existence in the system of a function for recovering stored data owing to a transfer to the computer. 

In other words, the sentence relied on by the patentee does not expressly refer to the notion of storing data so as to be able to recover measurements for individual intervals – as claimed. Moreover, the court found that it was not clear that this is what was implicitly meant there. See also the following statement in the judgment:

Indeed, the fact that measurements are stored as “independent records” does not imply that the measurements, wholly or partly related to these records, can be recovered in an individual manner.

In this respect, the EPO’s gold standard of direct and unambiguous derivability seems to be applied by the French judges.

Extensively examining the rest of the description and drawings, the court noted that there was no actual disclosure of technical means to perform the claimed feature:

No means for separately recovering one of the measurements of the non-volatile memory is ever mentioned in the description of the patent. 

[…]

And table 6 […] effectively shows that the measurements of intervals are recorded one after each other, half hour by half hour during a certain time, which is a measurement and storing mode already widely known without adding any means to individualize data. 

The court continued by noting that the recovery of an individual measurement for a certain interval requires for instance predefined addressable memory areas. But no such embodiment was disclosed in EP’090.

In summary, the subject-matter of claim 1 was found to extend beyond the content of the application as filed, the same conclusion applying to all of the following claims, and the patent was declared invalid.

The issue of infringement was accordingly not addressed.

Whether readers agree or disagree with the court’s findings, the good news is that a very thorough assessment of the technical information made available to the skilled person in the application as filed was performed, which looks every bit as good as what we could find in a decision by a Board of appeal of the EPO.

The judgment is also yet another reminder that completely redefining an invention during examination proceedings by digging for some isolated disclosure may be a winning strategy for the grant, but a losing one during opposition or litigation.


CASE REFERENCE: Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 3ème chambre 1ère section, November 2, 2017, Quadlogic Controls Corporation v. SA Enedis, RG No. 16/03165.

Smells like revocation

Believe it or not, it is somewhat difficult for this blogger to know what his readers are most interested in. Do they yearn for complex legal discussions? Are they rather keen on getting their hands dirty with an insight into actual patents and prior art documents?

The good thing is that today’s post will contain a little bit of both – hoping that the answer to my question is not “none of the above“.

Reckitt-Benckiser owns European patent No. EP 1891197 which is entitled “Process for manufacturing improved dispensing devices“. This patent owner is no small fish, but rather a giant in the hygiene industry. Think of the brands Air Wick, Calgon, Clearasil, Cillit Bang, Durex. But today, Harpic is the type of products we are talking about.

In June 2013, two companies of the Bolton group, namely the Italian Bolton Manitoba and the French Bolton Solitaire, filed a nullity suit against the French part of the European patent.

On March 13, 2015, the Paris Tribunal de grande instance (TGI) dismissed the nullity claim. Bolton appealed, and the Paris Cour d’appel issued its judgment a couple of weeks ago.

The first interesting aspect in the appeal judgment is… the application of the statute of limitations to the nullity claim.

One would think that we have heard enough about this topic on this blog lately, and one would be wrong.

As is usual now in a patent nullity lawsuit, the admissibility of the request for revocation was challenged by the patent proprietor. The proprietor deemed that the limitation period for the nullity claim started running from the publication date of the application.

In the present case, the application had been published before the amended statute of limitations entered into force on June 19, 2008 (as discussed here, this amended statute brought the default limitation period from 30 years down to 5 years, which initially created the legal mess that we are now in). Therefore, the patentee said, the starting point was postponed to June 19, 2008, when the amended statute entered into force; and the limitation period expired on June 19, 2013, i.e. five days before the nullity complaint was served.

On the other hand, the nullity plaintiff argued that the five-year limitation period only started from the publication of the grant of the patent, namely August 27, 2008, so that the nullity action was timely filed and admissible.

The court ruled that

[…] the limitation period can only start running from the date on which the person against whom [the patent] is asserted can validly act; pursuant to article 64 EPC, a European patent confers rights as from the publication of the mention of grant, so that a nullity action against a European patent application does not exist. The limitation period for the action can thus only start running, in the present case, from the publication of the patent grant at the earliest

There is a lot to digest in this single sentence:

  • It is a good thing that the publication of the application was not upheld as a valid starting point – this is the last thing we need right now.
  • The choice of the patent grant as the starting point is consistent with the recent ruling by the same panel of the Cour d’appel in Halgand v. RP Nicoll, discussed here.
  • The court did not perform an in concreto assessment, which currently continues to be applied by the judges in the TGI (see the discussion here).
  • However, the wording used by the court, i.e. can thus only start running in the present case, from the publication of the patent grant at the earliest“, does not fully contradict the in concreto approach. Here, the nullity plaintiff seems to have taken the position that the starting point did not need to be accurately determined, as it could anyway not be before the publication of the patent grant, which thus ensured the admissibility of the action in any case. And the appeal judges fully followed this approach.

Therefore, all in all, this new ruling does not change much relative to the previous situation. Or, as they say in every good mystery novel, the plot thickens.

Having found the nullity action admissible, the court turned to the merits of the case, and more particularly to the contention that claim 1 of the patent did not involve an inventive step.

This is the second interesting aspect in the judgment, since the Cour d’appel reversed the decision under appeal in this respect, and declared claim 1 invalid although it had survived the first instance proceedings.

The patent in suit is directed to a manufacturing process for a sanitizing toilet block. Claim 1 reads as follows:

A process for the manufacture of a lavatory dispensing device useful for the delivery of at least one treatment composition, preferably a cleaning composition and/or a sanitizing composition to a sanitary appliance, preferably a toilet bowl which method comprises the steps of: 

– providing a composition to an extruder,
– forming an extrudate from said composition;
– inserting part of a hanger into said extrudate;
– compressing the extrudate to encase or enrobe said part of a hanger thereby forming said lavatory dispensing device.

The next generation sanitary appliance for your toilets.

I understand that the relevant prior art was the following:

  • Some prior art references taught the manufacturing of toilet blocks by placing a hanger in a composition comprising paradichlorobenzene, and compressing the composition onto the lower end of the hanger. These blocks are “cageless”, that is they are provided on their own and not in a plastic cage.
  • Other prior art references disclosed the manufacturing of toilet blocks by an extrusion process, and their inclusion into cages.

In the first instance judgment, claim 1 was found to be inventive. The TGI commented on the teaching of the prior art as follows:

– the process of fixing a hanger to a cageless device only concerns compositions containing paradichlorobenzene, known for its low solubility, which has now been prohibited since it is considered as a dangerous material; 

– the insertion of the hanger occurs when the block is molded; 

– none of the […] patents suggests a compression after an extrusion, to attach the hanger; 

– compositions containing at least one surfactant (which leads to the block breaking off) are in the prior art always placed in a support. 

Therefore, the skilled person was not naturally prompted by this prior art to contemplate a toilet block containing surfactants, to be used without a cage, by inserting a hanger into a block obtained by extrusion, and then compressing the extrudate to encase the hanger. 

The existing prejudice that cages were required to support and contain sanitary treatment blocks was overcome, since it is now possible to make cageless devices which comprise a suspending hanger and a composition as a compressed full block tied to the suspending hanger, said solid block compositions comprising one or more chemical compounds, preferably at least one surfactant composition. 

It is remarkable that the first instance court did not apply the problem and solution approach. Though this reasoning “made in EPO” is more and more often relied upon by litigants and judges in France, it is by no means mandatory.

It is also noteworthy that the TGI, when discussing why the skilled person would not have achieved the invention in an obvious manner, made reference to a number of features which are actually not present in claim 1.

For example, the court seemed to consider that the composition of the block comprises surfactants and does not comprise paradichlorobenzene. According to the court, this is very important, as only paradichlorobenzene-based blocks were disclosed as being compressively tied to a hanger – in view of the particularly low solubility of this chemical. But claim 1 does not explicitly exclude the presence of paradichlorobenzene, and does not specifically call for the presence of surfactants (which are recited in dependent claim 10). Claim 1 merely mentions a “treatment composition, preferably a cleaning and/or a sanitizing composition“.

Furthermore, the court considered that there was a prejudice against cageless devices comprising a sanitary composition (as opposed to a merely deodorizing, paradichlorobenzene-based composition). But claim 1 does not explicitly exclude the presence of a cage in addition to the hanger. This is in fact the subject-matter of dependent claim 8.

As for the appeal judges, they did not follow the problem and solution approach either. But they did reach a different conclusion: 

In the end, at the priority date of European patent No. 1891197, in view of the teaching of the above documents, the skilled person […] knew processes for making blocks for toilet bowls suspended by hangers; desirous of making a cageless suspended lavatory block, not based on molded paradichlorobenzene (deemed toxic) but on treatment compositions comprising surfactants, obtained by extrusion, he could use the same process starting from an extruded composition as taught in [a couple of patents]; he also knew from the teaching of [another patent] that it was possible to compress an extrudated block to give it a shape or to close the opening resulting from the insertion of the hanger.   

It is striking that the Cour d’appel shared the TGI’s appraisal of the crux of the invention, namely providing a cageless device for a block comprising surfactants.

The TGI was thus not blamed for its extremely extensive interpretation of claim 1 in view of the description of the patent. 

As far as I can tell, the different conclusion was in fact reached due to a new prior art citation, namely a reference disclosing the compression “of an extrudated block to give it a shape or to close the opening resulting from the insertion of the hanger” – whereas the first instance judges had noted that “none of the […] patents suggests a compression after an extrusion, to attach the hanger”. 

First instance judgments are very often confirmed on appeal in France. One exception to this general trend is when new facts arise, such as a new prior art document like in the present case.


CASE REFERENCE: Cour d’appel de Paris, Pôle 5 chambre 2, October 20, 2017, Bolton Manitoba & SASU Bolton Solitaire v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, RG No. 15/09777.