Standard or not standard?

Traditionally, non-practicing entity patent infringement suits have been  relatively few and far between in France.

Without the huge financial stakes of U.S. litigation, and without the lure of German bifurcation, the French legal system has, to some extent, resisted the trend so far. There are a few counter-examples, though.

Like the case discussed today, between famous Intellectual Ventures (IV) and SFR, one of the major French telecommunications companies.

Among the many patents owned by IV is EP 1304002, entitled “Arranging Data Ciphering In a Wireless Telecommuncation System” and originally filed as a PCT application by Nokia Mobile Phones Ltd, in Finland.

As you have probably already guessed, IV initiated legal proceedings in front of the Paris Tribunal de grande instance (TGI), alleging infringement of the EP’002 patent. The alleged infringement mainly relates to the WiFi technology.

You will not know who won at the end of the post, because no one did – the lawsuit is not over yet. In fact, the pleadings hearing is presently scheduled to take place on November 23, 2018. So there is still plenty of time left for you to take your morning off at the new courthouse.

The decision discussed today is only an interim order issued by the judge in charge of case management (JME in the local jargon).

Can you believe there are actually patent applications on methods for identifying patent troll activity? Do some of them get acquired by NPEs, just for the irony of it?

Among the various defenses raised by SFR, there is a rather interesting one, which is that the EP’002 patent is a standard essential patent (SEP).

Two standards were mentioned by SFR: 3GPP TS 33.234 (a 3G standard issued by ETSI – short for European Telecommunications Standards Institute), and 802.11.2012 (a WiFi standard issued by IEEE – short for Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). According to SFR, the EP’002 patent was not declared as essential by its then owner Nokia – a member of both ETSI and IEEE – although it should have been. Due to this omission, they argued, the infringement action should be deemed inadmissible.

Now, apparently SFR did not have all the necessary evidence at hand.

They thus wrote both to ETSI and IEEE and requested the “travaux préparatoires” (one of the most well-known French expressions among lawyers, ranking third after “bonjour” and “merci”) for the relevant standards, as well as relevant correspondence between Nokia and both organizations.

France-based ETSI replied that they would provide the requested documentation, but IEEE turned down SFR’s request.

Thus, SFR filed a motion with the JME, requesting a stay and further requesting that IEEE be ordered to hand down the relevant documents. 

IV fought this motion.

First, IV claimed that SFR’s motion was inadmissible.

Indeed, IEEE is based in the U.S., and the French judge has no jurisdiction to directly order a third party to the litigation to hand down evidence, they argued. The only possible procedure would be the letter rogatory, i.e. the French judge should ask U.S. authorities to issue the order.

The judge closely looked at the written response made by IEEE further to SFR’s request. The first part of this response was the following:

Please be advised that it is IEEE’s policy not to provide information that may be used in litigation without a subpoena. This is to protect IEEE’s neutrality in any dispute. If that is necessary, please feel free to let me know and we can arrange the details of service. 

The JME deduced from this response that IEEE was willing to hand down the evidence at stake, and that they just required a formal judicial order for doing so. The judge was happy to oblige, and the formal and cumbersome process of the letter rogatory could thus be avoided.

I note that IEEE’s response does not specify whether the requested subpoena should be specifically issued by a U.S. court, or whether any subpoena would do. It was probably the judge’s understanding that, in the absence of any specific mention, they were open to any form of subpoenaing.

As a second defense against the motion, IV argued that SFR’s request was useless and unjustified.

SFR raised the SEP argument late in the case management procedure, IV said, and only they should have the burden of providing their own evidence. Besides, the second part of IEEE’s written response to SFR reads as follows:

However, a subpoena may not be necessary in this instance as IEEE 802.11 does host a public website that contains a wide variety of working group materials. The IEEE 802.11 website is located http://www.ieee802.org/11/.

But the judge held that SFR was free to raise a new defense at any point within the case schedule (which, in case you are wondering, is nothing like the extremely tight schedule envisioned for the future UPC). Besides, SFR stated that they could not find the relevant documents on the IEEE website, and that in particular the correspondence with Nokia is not supposed to be available on this site. Finally, the supply of evidence by the standard organizations should not take long.

As a result, the judge granted SFR’s request and issued an order for IEEE to send SFR all documents and reports of the working group relating to the relevant part of IEEE 802.11, as well as the relevant correspondence with Nokia, within one month.

On the other hand, the request for stay of proceedings was dismissed – probably because this timeline is supposed to be still compatible with the planned date for the main hearing.

Access to evidence can be challenging in this country especially in the absence of discovery / disclosure. French judges are often reluctant to order a taking of evidence, such as the provision of documents. But in a case such as this one, it does seem rather fair that a defendant should be allowed to explore a particular line of defense by requesting third party-held documents.

We will thus stay tuned, and I am sure the decision on the merits will be most interesting to read – if the lawsuit goes all the way of course.


CASE REFERENCE: Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 3ème chambre 4ème section, ordonnance du juge de la mise en état, June 7, 2018, Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Société française du radiotéléphone, RG No. 16/16346.

An infringement theory to be taken with a grain of salt

In a previous post entitled The salt of the judgment, I reported on an order issued in July 2016 and rejecting a request for preliminary injunction against Biogaran’s generic version of the drug rosuvastatin.

The judgment on the merits has now been issued, so this is an opportunity to go back to this interesting case. The problem with this approach is that finding a good title for a blog post in relation with a given case is difficult enough once, and it is even more difficult the second time. By the time I may get to report on a possible appeal ruling, I am afraid I may run short of salty idioms.

So, yes, everything in this case is about salt, or rather salts.

Claim 1 of the patent at stake (EP0521471, owned by the Japanese pharmaceutical company Shionogi, and licensed to the Swedish group AstraZeneca), on which the SPC is based, reads as follows:

The compound (+)-7-[ 4-(4-fluorophenyl)-6-isopropyl-2-(N-methyl-N-methylsulfonylamino)pyrimidin-5-yl)-(3R,5S)dihydroxy-(E)-6-heptenoic acid or a non-toxic pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.

The compound in question is rosuvastatin, in its acid or salt form.

The active substance in Biogaran’s generic drug is the zinc salt of rosuvastatin. The zinc salt is not cited in the patent at stake.

As a reminder, the judge in charge of emergency proceedings ruled that the zinc salt of rosuvastatin was in fact excluded from the scope of the patent, when the claim was properly interpreted in view of the description.

Now this preliminary view has been confirmed by the three-judge panel of the Tribunal de grande instance (TGI). As a side note, the judge who issued the interim order (Ms. Courboulay) was not part of this panel.

Here is the relevant part of the judgment (as usual, I took the liberty of cutting excessively long sentences into shorter ones):

[…] [In the patent,] the patentee has mentioned in a clear and precise wording at paragraph [0007] what is meant by “a non-toxic pharmaceutically acceptable salt”, namely “a salt wherein the cation is an alkaline metal ion, an alkaline earth metal ion or an ammonium ion”. [It] does not comprise any indication allowing [the skilled person] to select a salt in another family. [Besides,] the patentee, even if it did not expressly exclude a specific salt, did not, unlike in other paragraphs of the patent, add the expressions “which are not to be considered as limiting”, [0029] […] or “and the like”, [0006] and [0024] […]. [Thus, the skilled person] understands that the salts protected in the patent are defined in a limiting manner as a salt wherein the cation is an alkaline metal ion, an alkaline earth metal ion or an ammonium ion. 

Therefore, and as decided by the judge in charge of emergency proceedings, it derives that the non-toxic pharmaceutically acceptable salts protected by claim 1 are salts wherein the cation is an alkaline metal ion, an alkaline earth metal ion or an ammonium ion.

A very interesting example that claim interpretation in view of the description can be used both ways: not only for broadening the scope of protection of the patent beyond what is literally claimed, but also in some situations for restricting said scope.

As a result of this claim interpretation, the necessary conclusion was that Biogaran’s zinc salt of rosuvastatin did not literally infringe the SCP.

Shionogi and AstraZeneca argued that zinc could be considered as an alkaline earth metal at the filing date. They said that the exact classification of zinc was a matter of debate.

However, the court was not convinced. Based on a 1978 dictionary and on Mendeleev’s table, it appeared that zinc could not be considered as an alkaline earth metal.

Non-toxic salts are useful for other purposes than drugs: salt sculptures for instance.

Another auxiliary argumentation by the plaintiffs was one of contributory infringement: once ingested, the zinc salt of rosuvastatin dissociates, and the anionic active molecule recombines with sodium or hydrogen, to form the sodium salt or the acid form of rosuvastatin. Thus, the zinc salt of rosuvastatin should be considered as an essential means for carrying out the claimed invention.

This bold argument failed – just as it had in the interim proceedings:

[…] The fact that the zinc salt of rosuvastatin, after ingestion, would dissociate in the patient’s body under a neutral acid form may not characterize contributory infringement […]. First, the third party mentioned in article L. 613-4 Code de la propriété intellectuelle [CPI], namely the patient, is not aware of the mechanism of decomposition of the drug within the body, so that he/she does not know under this provision that the ingestion of the drug at stake is intended for implementing the claimed invention. Second, this drug ingestion by the patient is carried out in a private and non-commercial context, so that the patentee’s rights do not extend to such acts. 

The first reason mentioned by the court for rejecting this infringement theory is quite convincing. It is true that the patient has absolutely no idea what the drug becomes after ingestion.

The second reason looks much more challengeable on a legal standpoint. Admittedly, the rights conferred by a patent do not extend to acts carried out in a private and non-commercial context (article L 613-5 CPI). But here, the allegedly infringing act is not the ingestion of the drug by the patient, but the sale of the drug to patients, considered as the supply of essential means for implementing the invention to a third party. And article L. 613-4 CPI clearly states that a party benefiting from the exemption of article L. 613-5 CPI (such as a patient) is not regarded as a party authorized to implement the claimed invention for the purpose of the assessment of contributory infringement.

That said, one good reason was certainly enough to throw out Shionogi and AstraZeneca’s auxiliary infringement theory.

In addition to rejecting the plaintiffs’ infringement claims, the court also had to examine the validity of the EP’471 patent.

The interim order had already stated that there was no serious validity challenge. In the judgment now issued by the three-judge panel, the validity of the patent has been confirmed.

The grounds for nullity which were raised were extension of subject-matter, insufficiency of disclosure and lack of inventive step.

Regarding extension of subject-matter, original claim 1 in the application as filed was directed to a compound defined by a Markush formula with five variable groups X, R1, R2, R3 and R4.

Two examples of the application disclosed calcium rosuvastatin and sodium rosuvastatin.

The defendant argued that the acid form of rosuvastatin, on the other hand, was not directly and unambiguously disclosed in the application as originally filed.

But the court was satisfied that claim 1 of the patent was obtainable by the skilled person based on the examples of calcium and sodium rosuvastatin, and on a paragraph of the description which provided a broader definition for group R4 in the general formula, namely: hydrogen (corresponding to an acid form of the molecule), or a lower alkyl group, or a cation capable of forming a non-toxic, pharmaceutically acceptable salt.

What is not explicitly discussed in the court’s reasoning is the fact that the definition of group R4 was restricted to arrive at claim 1 as granted, since the option of a lower alkyl group is no longer covered in the patent.

Turning now to sufficiency of disclosure, Biogaran raised two objections:

  • there is no information in the patent how to select or use salts of rosuvastatin other than the exemplified sodium and calcium salts;
  • the patent does not sufficiently establish the existence of a therapeutic effect, as it only disclosed an in vitro test, and did not contain any precise indication on a possible dosage regimen.

Regarding the first objection, it is certainly relevant that only certain types of salts were held by the court to be covered by claim 1, namely alkaline metal, alkaline earth metal and ammonium salts. Therefore, it was immaterial for the appraisal of sufficiency that the zinc salt for instance is not discussed in the patent, since this salt is not covered by claim 1.

The court noted that the patent discloses a process for making various salts, and that Biogaran did not demonstrate any difficulty for carrying out the invention with the different forms of rosuvastatin that are claimed.

As for the second objection, the court was satisfied that, since the patent relates to new molecules, an assay comparing the biological activity (namely the activity of inhibition of HMG-CoA reductase) of rosuvastatin to that of the prior art drug mevinoline, is a sufficient disclosure of the therapeutic effect.

Lastly, inventive step.

Biogaran’s argument was based on two prior art documents, Bayer and Beck, which both disclose a broad family of compounds having an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitory activity. Biogaran argued that rosuvastatin can be obtained by way of a selection from the teaching of these documents, and that this selection is arbitrary, since the therapeutic effect of rosuvastatin is the same as that of the other compounds of the broad family explicitly taught in Bayer and Beck.

The court held that this reasoning is based on hindsight and thus impermissible. The court stated in particular that the skilled person would focus on options described as preferred in the prior art, and would thus not study all possible compounds at random. In this case, there was no pointer in the prior art leading the skilled person to rosuvastatin.


CASE REFERENCE: Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 3ème chambre 2ème section, February 9, 2018, Shionogi Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha, AstraZeneca & AstraZeneca UK Ltd v. Biogaran, RG No. 16/13292.

A light ruling

The case discussed today is not a light case of patent infringement. Nor is it a case of light patent infringement. It is rather a case of patent infringement regarding light technology, namely LED-based lamps emitting light in multiple colors.

The litigation at stake pits Philips Light North America Corporation against France-based Commerce Spectacle Industrie (CSI).

This is a multifaceted dispute, but the prong of the litigation of interest to us today is Philips’ infringement claim against CSI based on the French part of European patent No. EP 1016062, and CSI’s counterclaim for revocation.

As a one sentence summary, the Paris Tribunal de grande instance (TGI) held that the patent was valid but that infringement was not sufficiently proven.

For once, let’s start with the infringement part of the decision.

Claim 1 of the patent as maintained in amended form in opposition proceedings at the EPO reads as follows:

An illumination apparatus comprising:
– a plurality of light emitters of at least two different colours adapted to be coupled to a power circuit including a power source and a common potential reference;
– driver means for driving the plurality of light emitters, the driver means comprising at least two switches connected to the plurality of light emitters and said power circuit and corresponding to respective current paths of the at least two different colour light emitters;
– a controller for periodically and independently opening and closing the at least two switches, the controller having an alterable address assigned to itself such as to identify and respond to a respective portion of an input data stream assigned thereto, which data stream portion is assigned to that controller;
– each light emitter being an LED; and
– said controller being arranged to generate a plurality of PWM signals, the PWM signals having uniform frequency, each signal corresponding to a respective colour of the plurality of LEDs of different colours, each said PWM signal causing a respective one of the at least two switches to be opened and closed at the uniform frequency according to respective independent duty cycles, and wherein said data stream portion comprises data for determining the respective duty cycles of the at least two different colour LEDs.

An enlightening invention.

Philips’ case primarily relied on experimental tests conducted on the allegedly infringing lamps by an expert appointed by them.

CSI criticized the report drafted by the expert. One major criticism was that Philips’ expert had used an oscilloscope for the experimental tests, without following the procedure set out in the instruction manual for this apparatus. In particular, the expert’s report did not show that the oscilloscope had been preheated for 30 minutes as recommended in the manual, and that a proper calibration had been performed.

CSI added that there were a number of loopholes in Philips’ demonstration, namely that “the expert report does not mention a periodic opening and closing of the switches, that [Philips] does not show how the current paths are and does not establish the presence of respective current paths […], that they never show how a switch would be connected to the diodes“.

Did the court see the light, readers are probably wondering?

Of course the answer depends whose side you are on, but the court did find that CSI’s criticisms had merit:

For each product, [Philips] relies on measures made with an oscilloscope, the conditions of use of which are not specified in the expert report […], although it is true that the instruction manual [….] notably requires a preheating of at least 30 minutes and a calibration before each use so as to allow optimal measurements […]. These basic precautions were not taken, so that the measurements obtained are necessarily suspect. It cannot be understood how the absence of a calibration could have no impact on the shape or (supposedly uniform) frequency of the signals, nor how the absence of preheating would not affect the measurements. The [alleged] continuous use [of the oscilloscope] for all measurements after the first one, which cannot be determined in the absence of any timing information in the report, and which cannot be derived from the order of the annexes which does not necessarily reflect the order of the operations, is not proven and may not compensate for a possible original malfunction.

Frankly, I am not sure what to make of all this.

On the one hand, we all remember from our science classes that calibration is not just for window-dressing. Did the expert proceed according to accepted practice or not? If the report is silent on this, the defendant and the judges cannot know for sure.

But on the other hand, any experimental report can always, always, be criticized for some choices that were made in the setup, or some omissions in the report itself.

Therefore, wouldn’t it be reasonable to consider that, if one party has taken the trouble of conducting experimental trials to prove its case, and if the other party wants to challenge the results of the trials, this other party should also make the effort of conducting counter trials – instead of simply pointing to potential loopholes?

Well, at any rate it does not look like this is the approach followed in France. The infringement plaintiff has the burden of fully proving the existence of the infringement, and the burden does not shift to the defendant by providing evidence which is anything short of bullet-proof.

That said, it seems that in the present case the demonstration of infringement was incomplete anyway, irrespective of the credibility of the expert’s report. And this would have been by itself sufficient to throw out the infringement claim – although the judgment does not contain many details:

Assuming that these measurements were sufficient, they would demonstrate an independent command of colors, but not the existence of “respective current paths” […], i.e. paths related to each light source, since independence does not per se imply an exclusive assignment. And the diagrams supplied for each product only show one light source, which prohibits any appraisal of the “respective” character of the current paths. 

Philips’ solace was that the patent was found to be valid. CSI had only raised lack of inventive step as a ground of nullity.

As a confirmation of a now well-established trend, the court followed the problem and solution approach for assessing inventive step – primarily because the parties themselves used this reasoning.

Here is the court’s summary of the appraisal to be conducted:

Since the parties, at least primarily, apply the non-mandatory “problem/solution” approach, it will be adopted […] by the court. It requires, in order to allow an objective examination of the inventive step without hindsight: 

– objectively identifying the closest prior art, i.e. a prior art reference which discloses subject-matter developed for the same purpose or having the same goal as the claimed invention and essentially having similar technical features requiring few structural modifications, 

– assessing the technical results achieved by the claimed invention relative to this prior art, 

– defining the technical problem which the invention purports to solve by obtaining these technical results, 

– examining whether, in view of the closest prior art, the skilled in the art would or would not [have been] suggested with the claimed technical features to achieve the results obtained by the claimed invention. 

In brief, this quite closely matches the EPO’s beloved reasoning.

In the present case, the parties seemed to agree that there were two partial problems at stake. Here, again, the court relied on the EPO practice, even making reference to the Guidelines for examination:

As set out in section G-VII, 7 of the Guidelines for examination at the EPO, if the claimed invention is in principle considered as a whole, which excludes that the inventive step of a combination of features be appraised for each feature taken in isolation, such a separate appraisal is necessary if the claim is made of a juxtaposition of features, and not of their combination which implies that the functional interaction between them produces its own technical effect exceeding the sum of the technical effects that they individually produce, namely a synergy effect. 

Applying these principles to the EP’062 patent, the court focused on the first partial problem only, and found that some of the claimed features were in fact neither disclosed in the closest prior art, nor in the suggested secondary reference. Therefore, it was simply impossible to arrive at a conclusion of lack of inventive step. Besides, the rationale offered by CSI for combining the documents together did not take into account the technical problem at stake in the patent. And the respective prior art documents contained contradictory teaching.

All in all, there were thus several reasons to find the claim inventive, without even having to look at the second partial problem.


CASE REFERENCE: Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 3ème chambre, 1ère section, November 16, 2017, Philips Lighting North America Corporation v. SAS Commerce Spectacle Industrie, RG No. 15/09326.

Publicity stunt

There is no such thing as bad publicity, some say. Or, as Oscar Wilde wrote, there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about. 

This rule may have some merit in show business and in U.S. politics, but it is clearly inaccurate in the trade and industry business.

A recent illustration can be found in one of those never-ending French patent disputes, where judgments keep popping up every 2 to 3 years, namely Newmat v. Normalu.

In this dispute, Newmat is the patentee and original plaintiff, and Normalu the original defendant.

As a non-exhaustive summary, in October 2004, Normalu was found guilty of patent infringement at first instance. This was finally confirmed on appeal in May 2010 (in case you are wondering, yes that took a while, but only because there was a first appeal judgment which was set aside by the Cour de cassation, and the case was remitted back to the Cour d’appel).

The litigation continued for the purpose of damages computation. In January 2012, the Paris Cour d’appel issued its final ruling on damages.

A few months thereafter, Newmat published a document entitled “Legal information note on Newmat v. Normalu Barrisol – decision on patent infringement relating to a profiled part for hanging suspended ceiling”. The document contained the court order from the appeal ruling of 2010.

Normalu deemed that this internet publication was an act of unfair competition and therefore sued Newmat, to claim damages. This new branch of the litigation culminated in an appeal ruling from the Paris Cour d’appel issued in May 2015. In the ruling, the court found that Newmat was indeed guilty of unfair competition but limited the amount of damages to the minor amount of 5,000 euros.

Normalu was so disappointed with the outcome that they filed an appeal on points of law. The Cour de cassation rejected Normalu’s appeal on October 18, 2017.

Let’s have a closer look at the facts of the case.

In the first judgment of 2004 in which Normalu was found guilty of infringement, the court granted Newmat’s request that the order of the decision should be published in three journals or newspapers selected by Newmat, up to a cost of 3,000 euros per publication, to be paid by the defendant.

Such a “publication order” is a classical measure quite often ordered by the courts when there is an infringement verdict. An explicit legal basis for this type of order was in fact added to the statute in 2007 (article L. 615-7-1 of the Code de la propriété intellectuelle). It is seen as a complementary remedy to the trouble caused by the infringement.

A novel and inventive way to communicate on judgments

However, Newmat did not implement this publication order. Instead, they published the abovementioned “legal information note” on their website, and published links to this note in their newsletter and on Twitter.

Normalu argued that Newmat was only authorized by the court to publish the order of the judgment in the form mentioned in the judgment, i.e. in three journals or newspapers. Newmat was not authorized to give the judgment another and arguably broader form of publicity, and should thus be held liable.

The Paris Cour d’appel disagreed and noted that the infringement judgment was public, so that Newmat was free to communicate on it as they wished. The publication order in the judgment did not restrict in any way Newmat’s ability to publish the judgment in a different manner (at its own expenses, one can add). Therefore, the only issue that the court ought to check was whether there was any abuse in Newmat’s communication, and in particular if this communication was disparaging or otherwise represented an act of unfair competition.

In other words, the Paris Cour d’appel did not see any issue in principle with the publication of the judgment on Newmat’s own initiative; but it was nevertheless necessary to check whether the contents and the form of the publication were appropriate.

At this point, the court noted that the text published on the website was neutral and did not comprise any comment – so far so good. Then the court remarked that the text published on Newmat’s website was identical to the order actually contained in the infringement judgment, but for two exceptions.

The first exception was that the part of the order relating to the designation of an expert (for the assessment of damages) was omitted from Newmat’s publication. This was found by the judges to be without any consequence, as the reader was not misled due to the omission.

The second exception was that the order of the infringement judgment referred to the company Normalu, whereas Newmat’s note mentioned “Normalu (Barrisol)” instead. Barrisol seems to be a trade name under which Normalu operates and markets its products.

Newmat explained that it was necessary to specify that Normalu was Barrisol, so that the reader coud properly understand the provided information. On the other hand, Normal argued that, in view of the well-known reputation of the Barrisol trademark, the mention added by Newmat resulted in increasing the impact of the judgment publicity, beyond the exact wording of the judgment.

On this respect, the Cour d’appel sided with Normalu, which led to the conclusion that Newmat had indeed committed an act of unfair competition.

Turning to the computation of damages, Normalu claimed that they had to launch a radio advertising campaign in May 2012 in order to mitigate the effect of Newmat’s online communication. But the appeal judges held that the link between the radio ads and Newmat’s wrongdoing was not adequately proven by Normalu. This led the court to set the amount of damages to the rather symbolic amount of 5,000 euros.

Normalu pleaded its case again in front of the Cour de cassation, but as mentioned above, the supreme court judges found no error in the 2015 appeal decision and rejected Normalu’s appeal on points of law.

In particular, regarding the principle of the online communication performed by Newmat, the court held that:

legal decisions are public; thus the provisions of article L. 615-7-1 Code de la propriété intellectuelle (per which in case of an infringement verdict, the court may order any appropriate measure of judgment publicity, such as by poster or by a full or partial publication in newspapers or online communication services that it designates, in a form to be specified and at the expenses of the infringer), do not exclude the victim’s right to proceed, at its own expenses, with any other publicity measure regarding the condemnation granted to it.

This is a relatively important point.

It means that plaintiffs do not have to ask for the court’s permission before communicating on a ruling which is favorable to them. As long as they communicate at their own expenses, they can do it directly – under the proviso that they remain completely neutral and more generally do not act in an abusive manner.

I would add that it may not be a good idea for a plaintiff to publicize a first instance judgment which is not yet final.

Concerning now the form and contents of Newmat’s communication, the Cassation judges stated that the Cour d’appel was free to appraise the facts as it did, and thus that it issued a legally valid decision.


CASE REFERENCE: Cour de cassation, chambre commerciale, October 18, 2017, Normalu v. Newmat, No. 15-27136.

The bell always rings twice

This blog has now been around long enough for the same case to make it to a post several times, when new developments come up.

The present post is thus a sequel to my earlier comments on the litigation between Airbus Helicopters and Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.

As a reminder, the Paris Cour d’appel found Bell guilty of infringement of French patent No. FR 2749561 directed to a landing gear with skids.

Bell filed an appeal on points of law, and the Cour de cassation has now issued its judgment rejecting the appeal. Many different legal points were raised by Bell, but certainly the most interesting one relates to the finding of infringement concerning the so-called first version of helicopter Bell 429. This first version was a prototype, which was:

  • included in Bell’s catalogue;
  • shown in September 2005, which was reported on the website of a helicopter enthusiast (although Bell argued that this was a confidential presentation);
  • and put up on the website of Rotor & Aircraft, Bell’s distributor in France.

Bell’s defense was that this first version of the helicopter was not yet approved for sale. But the appeal judges noted that:

Offering for sale extends to any material operation aiming at putting a product in contact with potential customers, at preparing a commercial launch, even if said product, which in the present case was not yet approved, could not be marketed.

A helicopter prototype at a very early stage.

The “prototype” defense was raised again by Bell in front of the Cour de cassation, according to the seven following points.

First:

A mere prototype [was presented] in a private context and within a narrow circle of specialists; the prototype had not yet flown, and was later subjected to several modifications; in the absence of any prior certification, it could not be marketed; [this] cannot correspond to putting on the market nor even to a preparatory act for such putting on the market.

As a result, said Bell, the court breached the statute, by deciding that an offer for sale could relate to a product which could not be marketed.

The cour de cassation replied that the standard applied by the Cour d’appel was the right one, in particular because “the presentation of the product as a prototype can divert part of the clients of the patented product“. 

Second, the presentation of the first version of the landing gear was quickly followed by the marketing of the second version of the gear. Also, the certification of the second version was based on tests performed on the first version. Thus, the presentation was at best a preparation for the sale of the second version, and not an offer for sale of the first version.

The supreme court judges disagreed. In fact, the Cour d’appel had held that Bell intended to market the first version of the landing gear at the time it was presented.

Third, Bell blamed the appeal judges for relying on acts committed outside of France: an offer for sale abroad in a catalogue, and presentations in exhibitions in the U.S. and Canada. They said that only acts committed in France could possibly constitute an infringement.

However, for the Cour de cassation, the Cour d’appel did not hold any acts committed abroad as acts of infringement. They simply noted that the presentation in France had been preceded by offers for sale abroad. As I understand it, it is therefore OK to refer to acts committed abroad in order to characterize the overall context.

Fourth, Bell submitted that the report of the first version on a website owned by a helicopter enthusiast was an act committed in a private and non-commercial context – which is an exception to infringement.

Fifth, regarding the presentation of the helicopter on Rotor & Aircraft’s website, Bell argued that the landing gear could not be identified on the pictures appearing on the website.

Sixth, there was no evidence of the presentation of the first version in the Paris air show, since the bailiff’s report did not precisely describe the landing gear.

The Cour de cassation did not provide a detailed answer and simply referred to the appeal judges’ discretionary power for appraising the available evidence.

Seventh, the Cour d’appel refused to acknowledge that the acts committed related to the statutory experimental exception, because no test and no act of research were performed when the first version of the landing gear was presented. However, Bell said, the sole use of the landing gear could by itself aim at studying its behavior and therefore relate to the experimental exception.

But the cassation judges decided that the absence of evidence of any experimental testing was sufficient to reject the experimental exception.

Many other grounds were raised, regarding the validity of the patent, the validity of the infringement seizure report and the infringement by equivalence of the second version of the landing gear. They were all discarded.

One rather enjoyable part of the discussion relates to the way the bailiff drafted the infringement seizure report. The bailiff used in some instances the word “we” instead of “I“, so that it could not be determined, Bell said, what the bailiff had actually personally done or witnessed. The court replied that the use of the pronoun “we” was commonplace and could not be relied on to deduce that the bailiff had not carried out the seizure himself.

I wonder whether the pronoun “we” is that commonly used to designate a single individual. It is rather a specificity shared mainly by royalties and bailiffs, I would say.

Anyway, the take-away message from this important ruling remains that the presentation of a prototype can be considered as an offer for sale and thus an act of infringement, even if the product at stake is not yet marketable.


CASE REFERENCE: Cour de cassation, chambre commerciale, July 5, 2017, Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. & Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd. v. Airbus Helicopters, case No. B 15-20.554.