Russian Federation: The Supreme Court Of Russia Considers The Scope For Patent Amendments

Last Updated: 23 September 2019
Article by Nikolay Bogdanov
Most Read Contributor in Russian Federation, September 2019

This dispute over the validity of a patent for invention lasted almost two years and a half. It started with the receiving by Rospatent (the Russian Federal Service for Intellectual Property) in December 2017 of an appeal against patent No. 2588634 and finished (at least for now) with the rendering by Rospatent of a decision on 20 May 2019 to invalidate the patent in part and issue a new patent with the amended claims. During consideration of the dispute, both Rospatent and the courts twice changed their opinions on the possibility and scope of patent amendments. The Supreme Court agreed, which is rare in such disputes, to take it into consideration and drew a line in the dispute between Rospatent and the Intellectual Property Rights Court.

Disputes over the patentability of an invention which arise when considering applications by the patent office, or when challenging the patents already issued, are perhaps of the greatest interest in the patent practice. It is such disputes where the patent office's positions on any disputable issues are expressed and gaps in patent law are identified. The first instance for consideration of these disputes is Rospatent itself, namely, panels of the Chamber for Patent Disputes, which are specifically formed for such consideration; if parties disagree with the decision of Rospatent, the dispute is referred to a specialized court – the Intellectual Property Rights Court (hereinafter referred to as "IP Court") – the decisions of which, in turn, may be challenged in the Supreme Court.

Before proceeding to the description of the twists and turns of a particular dispute, we would like to explain the reasons for the difficulties that the parties to the dispute faced.

The question of the possibility and scope of amendments to the claims and description of the invention while challenging the patent's validity was in dispute in the case under consideration. The legislation gives no express or clear answer to this question.

The question of the possibility and scope of amendments to the claims and description of the invention while challenging the patent's validity was in dispute in the case under consideration. The legislation gives no express or clear answer to this question.

The law allows an applicant to amend the application's documents at the stage of its expert examination in Rospatent (before a decision on the application to issue or to refuse to issue a patent is rendered), but such amendments, first, should not result in a change in the essence of the invention, that is, in the appearance of features in the claims, which were absent in the application's materials as initially submitted, and, second, it may be amended only in response to a relevant expert's request or in response to the prior art search report received.

As opposed to more or less clear provisions of the law on amending the description and claims during expert examination of the application, as to the patent already issued, the law says only that obvious mistakes and clerical errors may be corrected in a patent. In addition, the law stipulates that, when challenging a patent, it may be invalidated in full or in part. At the same time, the law does not explain how the patent may be amended when it is invalidated in part.

The rules governing the procedure for consideration of appeals against a patent in Rospatent oblige the panel considering the dispute to propose that the patent holder amend the claims if, in the panel's opinion, these amendments would allow keeping the patent, at least in part.

As a rule, such amendments expect exclusion of the claims disclosing a non-patentable item and (or) inclusion of the features from the dependent claim in the independent claim.

The patent office and court practice of considering disputes over a patent's validity developed certain positions on patent amendments. In particular, Rospatent and the IP Court share a common approach that a patent may only be amended towards narrowing the scope of protection granted by it, and the claims cannot be amended by including the features (absent in the claims) from the description.

In the dispute presented here, the courts developed a legal position, in accordance with which it is acknowledged that, in certain cases, a patent holder, when his patent is challenged, may amend not only the claims, but the description as well.

In the dispute presented here, the courts developed a legal position, in accordance with which it is acknowledged that, in certain cases, a patent holder, when his patent is challenged, may amend not only the claims, but the description as well.

The events developed as follows. Patent No. 2588634 was issued with the claims for two embodiments of a process of producing a "ceramic proppant" involving the use of a mixture of a certain content. In order not to make the description more difficult by using special technical terminology, we will figuratively describe the mixture content under the invention as follows.

[Embodiment 1]

  • Component A in the amount of 30–50% of the mass of the mixture;
  • Component B in the amount of 50–70% of the mass of the mixture; and
  • Component C in the amount of 1–10% of the mass of the mixture.

[Embodiment 2]

  • Component A in the amount of 30–50% of the mass of the mixture;
  • Component B in the amount of 50–70% of the mass of the mixture; and
  • A mix of components C and D in the amount of 1–10% of the mass of the mixture with component D contained in the mix in the amount from 0 to 100%.

An appeal was filed against the patent, which was reasoned by the fact that the invention did not meet the "industrial applicability" criterion, namely, it was not implementable, and the "inventive step" criterion; and on the basis of inconsistency of the description of the patent to the requirement for complete disclosure of the invention being sufficient for its implementation.

The notice of appeal, first, stated that – just mathematically – Embodiments 1 and 2 allowed a situation where the components of the mixture made up more than 100% of its mass in the aggregate, which was impossible in principle, and in addition, Embodiment 2 allowed a situation, where there was no component D (0% of component D) or C (100% of component D) in the mix of components C and D, which was a logical mistake. Second, the notice of appeal drew attention to the fact that there was no example given in the description that would correspond to the quantitative content of component B. Indeed, the content of component B is 47–48%, but not 50–70% as indicated in the claims, in all examples given in the description.

Having disagreed with the decision of Rospatent, the patent holder filed an appeal with the IP Court.

Although Rospatent rejected the argument that the invention did not meet the "inventive step" criterion, it nonetheless agreed with other arguments of the appeal and rendered a decision to invalidate the patent in full, despite the fact that the patent holder considered the shortcomings of the description and the claims as "insignificant" and blamed the panel for not proposing to adjust the claims. As to the latter, Rospatent noted that the panel did not spot the opportunity to adjust the claims, since inclusion of the features from the dependent claims in the independent claim would not eliminate the causes that served as a basis for the panel's conclusion. Having disagreed with the decision of Rospatent, the patent holder filed an appeal with the IP Court.

When considering the dispute in the first instance, the IP Court pointed out that, during expert examination of the application, Rospatent established no inconsistencies in the application's documents under the disclosure requirement. In this regard, the court noted that the patent holder could not be restricted in its rights and lose the rights to the invention under the patent only because Rospatent had improperly performed its duties during expert examination, in violation of its duty it had not detected violations of the established requirements in the application's documents and had not informed the applicant of them, thereby providing him with the opportunity to amend the description and claims before a decision on it was rendered. As a result, at the stage of consideration of the appeal against the patent, the applicant (beyond its will and not through its fault) was actually deprived of the opportunity to adjust the application's documents.

Such a situation, in the court's opinion, is unacceptable. Rospatent should have substantiated why the doubts about disclosure arose only when considering the statement of opposition and why it came to the conclusion to the contrary.

At the same time, the court noted that civil legislation was based, among other things, on inviolability of ownership, binding unhindered exercise of civil rights, guaranteed redress of infringed rights, and their judicial protection. The court also stated that Article 10 of the Patent Law Treaty (to which Russia is a party) stipulated that, when permitted by the applicable national legislation, the patent holder should be provided with an opportunity to amend the application's materials. Having interpreted the norms of national civil legislation and international treaties to which the Russian Federation is a party (the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and PLT) in a consistent manner, the court made the following conclusion.

Since the law allows amendments to the application's documents before a decision on the application is rendered, and this right is conditioned upon the relevant request from Rospatent, if there is no such request, the patent holder retains its right to make amendments in case there is a threat of invalidation of such patent.

The gap existing in the regulation of the relevant legal relations in the Russian legislation does not evidence that a right holder has no such right. A different interpretation of the law would be contrary to the basic principles and international standards in patent law, which are envisaged by the above international treaties.

The court noted that Rospatent did not prove that there were circumstances under which amendments to the claims would not eliminate the causes that served as a sole basis for invalidation of the patent in full.

The court also stated that the rules for consideration of appeals should apply in accordance with the provisions of the law — Part Four of the Civil Code — and, therefore, could not deprive the applicant (patent holder) of the right to amend the claims or description of the invention.

Thus, the IP court (first instance) laid down a new legal position, pursuant to which, when considering appeals against a patent, amendments or adjustments may be made both to the claims and to the description of the invention.

Rospatent filed a cassation appeal with the Presidium of the IP Court, insisting that neither the law nor the rules for consideration of appeals provided for an opportunity to amend the description when considering an appeal against a patent and that permissible amendments to the claims of the challenged patent, in the Rospatent's opinion, could not change the conclusion on invalidity of the patent due to the incomplete disclosure of the invention in its description.

The Presidium of the IP Court, agreeing with the arguments of Rospatent, reversed the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the patent holder's appeal, having upheld the decision of Rospatent to invalidate the patent in full. In doing so, the Presidium of the IP Court proceeded from the fact that no amendments to the description of the patent already issued when considering an appeal against a patent were provided for by the law or by the rules, and the provision of the Patent Law Treaty was not directly applicable.

The patent holder appealed against the decision of the Presidium of the IP Court to the Supreme Court, which took the appeal for consideration by the Judicial Chamber on Economic Disputes.

Having studied the files of the case, the Chamber of the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Presidium of the IP Court and supported the conclusions of the court of first instance. Among other things, that Rospatent did not examine which features in the challenged patent were significant and whether the deviations in the quantity of component B (existing in the examples) from that given in the claims had an effect on achievement of the claimed technical result.

As to applicability of the PLT provisions, the Supreme Court confirmed that the corresponding provision of Article 10 of the Treaty was directly applicable. As a result, the Chamber of the Supreme Court confirmed the conclusion made by the court of first instance that the rules for consideration of appeals against patents should be applied taking into account the fact that the applicant (right holder) may amend both the claims and description of the invention. However, such amendments should not change the essence of the invention.

Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance on invalidation of the Rospatent's decision, for which reason Rospatent had to re-consider the appeal against the patent. During reconsideration of the appeal, the patent holder submitted to Rospatent supplements to the description and the amended claims of the invention. Based on the results of reconsideration of the appeal, Rospatent rendered a decision to invalidate this patent in part and to issue a new patent with the amended claims.

Amendment to the claims consisted in a change in the range of the quantity of components A (30–49% instead of 30–50%) and B (50–69% instead of 50–70%) and in a change in the range of the content of component D (1–99% instead of 0–100%). It may be noted that such amendments actually eliminate the first shortcoming of the previous claims, consisting of the fact that the components of the mixture made up more than 100% in the aggregate and that one of components C and D was absent in the mix of these components.

As to inconsistency between the values of the quantity of component B in the claims and in the examples from the description, when reconsidering the statement of opposition, Rospatent admitted that the examples given in the description confirmed achievement of the technical result by the invention despite the fact that the quantitative content of the mixture's components did not correspond to the ranges of values specified in the claims, including the amended claims.

Summing it all up, the following may be noted.

The decisions rendered by the courts, including the Supreme Court, are essential for the patent practice. Such cases, when shortcomings of the description not detected by Rospatent during expert examination of applications are found later when the patent is challenged, are not rare and, for this reason, they need additional legal regulation, for example, in a law or rules. And, although the Russian legal system is not a case-law system, the legal positions developed by the courts, particularly by the Supreme Court, in a particular case, are certainly taken into account both by Rospatent and by the Intellectual Property Rights Court when resolving similar disputes.

Originally Publish by The Patent Lawyer by CTC Legal Media, September/October 2019

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Gorodissky & Partners
Gorodissky & Partners
Gorodissky & Partners
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Practice Guides
by Mondaq Advice Centres
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
United States
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Gorodissky & Partners
Gorodissky & Partners
Gorodissky & Partners
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions