Getting a handle on limitation

Last week’s post was about a famous chemical case which found its way up to the Cour de cassation twice, due to a tricky limitation issue combined with a tricky SPC issue.

Today, I would like to reassure readers versed in the mechanical arts. Yes, they too are entitled to get some fun with fancy limitation questions.

The case at hand relates to French patent No. FR 2843372 (FR’372), which is concerned with a sales display pack for door or window handles. The patent proprietor Société de Fonderie du Centre (SOFOC) has apparently had a complicated relationship with DIY store chain Bricorama over the past twenty years. A recent episode of their hectic partnership is an infringement lawsuit brought by SOFOC against Bricorama based on FR’372.

Interestingly, the legal action was started only one month after a limitation of the patent was granted by the INPI (French patent office).

Bricorama counterclaimed for invalidity – why would they not – and my focus will be on their argument that some of the patent claims were invalid due to extension of the scope of protection after grant, further to the alleged “limitation” of the patent. Speaking EPO language, this would be an “Art.123(3) objection“.

The patent as granted comprised a main claim and seven dependent claims. Claim 1 read as follows:

Sales display pack for door or window handles comprising a finger-plate and a lever-handle, characterized in that it is composed firstly of cardboard folded on itself in two flaps, a presentation flap and a back flap, and secondly means of attachment of the said handle(s) to be presented on said cardboard fitting into cut-outs formed in said cardboard, the said cardboard comprising two fixing cut-outs formed facing each other on the two flaps, at least four cut-outs for attachment of the handle(s) to the said display pack, said cut-outs being formed facing each other in pairs in the two flaps and at least one cut-out formed on the presentation flap, in which a transparent compartment is placed for containing assembly accessories for the presented handle(s).

After the limitation, claim 1 was worded as follows (the highlighted expressions corresponding to added features):

Sales display pack for door or window handles comprising a finger-plate and a lever-handle, characterized in that it is composed firstly of cardboard folded on itself in two flaps, a presentation flap and a back flap, and secondly means of attachment of two handles to be presented on said cardboard fitting into cut-outs formed in said cardboard, so that the finger-plates rest against the presentation flap, said cardboard comprising two fixing cut-outs formed facing each other on the two flaps, at least four cut-outs for attachment of the two handles to the said display pack, said cut-outs being formed facing each other in pairs in the two flaps and at least one cut-out formed on the presentation flap, in which a transparent compartment is placed for containing assembly accessories for the presented handles.

It was not challenged that amended claim 1 was more restricted than claim 1 as granted.

The issue was that, together with the amendment of claim 1, the patent proprietor had also filed five brand new claims 9 to 13 which, they said, were merely dependent claims.

New claim 9 was worded as follows (the highlighted portions being in my view the most important ones):

A set of two door or window handles attached to a sales display pack, each handle comprising a finger-plate and a lever-handle, characterized in that the sales display pack is composed of cardboard folded on itself in two flaps, a presentation flap and a back flap, and secondly means of attachment of the two handles fitting into cut-outs formed in said cardboard, the finger-plates resting against the presentation flap, said cardboard comprising two fixing cut-outs formed facing each other on the two flaps, at least four cut-outs for attachment of the two handles to said display pack, said cut-outs being formed facing each other in pairs in the two flaps and at least one cut-out formed on the presentation flap, in which a transparent compartment is placed for containing assembly accessories for the presented handles, the sales display pack being according to one of claims 1 to 8.

The following new claims 10 to 13 were also directed to a set of handles attached to a sales display pack, making reference to claim 9. For the defendant, claim 9 was an independent claim, and not a mere dependent claim as advocated by the plaintiff. They also argued that claims 9 to 13 extended the scope of protection of the patent and were thus invalid.

Fancy handles are best displayed in their natural environment.
Fancy handles are best displayed in their natural environment.

The Tribunal de grande instance (TGI) ruled in the defendant’s favor:

It is true that claim 9 repeats the wording of claim 1 regarding the definition of the sales display pack, but it is directed to “a set of two door or window handles characterized in that the handles are attached to a sales display pack”. Now, claim 1 only relates to the sales display pack which supports the handles, and not to the set composed of these distinct elements. The scope of protection under Article L. 612-6 of the Code de la propriété intellectuelle, restricted to the sales display pack in claim 1, is extended in claim 9 to a different product made of the combination of the handles and previously characterized sales display pack. Claim 9 adds relative to the features of claim 1 and concerns a distinct subject-matter, whereas claims 10 to 13, which are mere embodiments of claim 9, depend on it. 

With this assessment of the nature of claim 9, it comes as no surprise that the TGI found that there had been an extension of the scope of protection:

[…] Article L. 613-24 of the Code de la propriété intellectuelle mentions limitation only as far as claims are modified. Per se, the addition of 5 dependent claims cannot be analyzed as a modification of preexisting claims. In fact, [SOFOC] does not contend that going from 8 to 13 claims would be the result of a mere redrafting of the initial claims 1 to 8, which remain unchanged – with the exception of the definition of the number of handles supported by the sales display pack. 

Moreover, it is now acknowledged that claim 9 does not simply repeat the features of claims 1 to 8 but includes a set made of the sales display pack and two handles in the scope of protection conferred by the patent. Even if it is clear that the description relates to a sales display pack intended for supporting door or window handles, it does absolutely not institute the combination of the two elements of the invention, and by the way the sole drawing of the patent does not show the handles. The latter are only mentioned in the description in order to understand the purpose of the sales display pack, which is the sole subject-matter of the invention. Also, the modification of claim 1 was sufficient to limit the protection to a sales display pack intended for supporting two door or window handles, without any need for the addition of 5 new claims. Thus, independent claim 9 and dependent claims 10 to 13 involve a broadening of the scope of protection conferred by the patent, which in fact would have had a significant impact on a possible damages computation, to a new object not comprised in the description and in the features of initial claims 1 to 8. They are therefore invalid.

In summary, the amendment was objectionable on two grounds.

First, limitation proceedings are not meant to add claims, but rather to modify and more precisely restrict existing claims. This seems to be in keeping with the Guidelines for examination in the EPO (section D-X, 4.3):

Likewise, adding dependent claims in limitation is not permissible if not directly caused by the limitation introduced in the claims.

In the present case, the addition of the supplemental claims seems to have been uncorrelated to the modification of claim 1 and thus unjustified.

The second ground retained by the judges is that new claim 9 and its dependent claims covered a different object from the one covered in the patent as granted. This is probably a more controversial point. For one thing, the TGI analyzed claim 9 as an independent claim, even though it explicitly refers to claims 1 to 8 and includes all the limitations of these preceding claims. This appraisal may not be fully consistent with the definition of independent and dependent claims provided in section F-IV, 3.4 of the Guidelines for examination in the EPO.

But, more importantly, the combination of a sales display pack and two handles, recited in claim 9, was considered as a different object (an aliud) in comparison with the sales display pack as such recited in claims 1 to 8. This approach is comparable to that adopted by the INPI in the Syngenta case discussed last week: the INPI considered that adding a second active substance to a claim directed to a fungicide composition comprising a first active substance resulted in a shift of the scope of protection towards a different object. As explained in the post, the Cour de cassation finally rejected the objection in Syngenta. But did they fully weigh all relevant factors? One cannot really tell based on the brief and cryptic reasons for the decision.

There are, to my mind, valuable reasons for making a distinction between (A) further restricting some features of a claimed object; and (B) adding a supplemental object in a claim. If case (A) undoubtedly corresponds to a real limitation, case (B) is not so simple, as it may in some instances pave the way for a new contributory infringement complaint, or for an increase in the amount of damages, as rightly noted by the court in the above citation – in addition to also making it theoretically possible to extend the duration of protection in the pharmaceutical or phytosanitary field, by way of an SPC application, as discussed last week.

A somewhat more indirect parallel can also be made with the Nespresso judgment discussed in a previous post. The TGI had objected to the presence of a claim directed to a device for the extraction of a capsule, plus the capsule itself, in combination, while the application as filed focused on the device without presenting the capsule as part of the invention. In this case, the nullity ground was extension of subject-matter beyond the contents of the application as filed, and not extension of the scope of protection after grant. But the underlying idea is similar.

A common feature of NespressoSyngenta and Bricorama is that the patent proprietor tried to change the focus of the invention after the filing date in order to gain a particular legal advantage. In all three cases, the judges thwarted the patentees’ strategy:

  • In Nespresso, the combination claim was introduced at a late stage during examination proceedings (after the issuance of the communication on the intent to grant by the EPO) presumably specifically in order to make it possible to sue capsule manufacturers. The combination claim was viewed by the French judges as improperly adding matter.
  • In Syngenta, a dependent claim was limited after grant in the hope of making it compliant with the Medeva standards, as a basis for a combo SPC application. The Cour de cassation validated the limitation but the SPC application was rejected all the same, and the rejection was confirmed by the Cour d’appel.
  • In Bricorama, new claims were added by way of limitation proceedings a few weeks before launching an infringement action, potentially modifying the quantum of damages. Those claims were revoked.

Could it be that courts are not that keen on too smart patentees?

As a final note, SOFOC did not have such a bad time in court after all. Having revoked claims 9 to 13, the court also revoked claims 1 to 4 (for lack of inventive step) but then held that dependent claims 5 to 8 were valid and infringed. This certainly made the judgment much easier for SOFOC to ahem… handle.


CASE REFERENCE: Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 3ème chambre, 1ère section, May 21, 2015, Société de Fonderie du Centre SA v. Bricorama France SAS & Bricorama SA, RG No. 2014/02007.

One thought on “Getting a handle on limitation”

  1. In a similar situation, a DG3 BoA came to the same outcome, but on different grounds: T1898/07 (reasons 18 ff), the claims had been amended in opposition appeal from “a liquid composition” (cf. granted claim 1; granted claim 3: “contained in a vessel”; granted claim 13: “being a syringe”) to “a packaged kit containing a syringe pre-filled with a liquid composition.” No mention of contributory infringement in the determination of the scopes of protection, but, for the BoA, “the content of a package is not a characterising feature of the package per se”. The perceived change of focus may have played a role here also.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.