European Union: Interpretation Of Force Of EPC And Institutions Of EPO By Turkish IP Courts

Last Updated: 3 August 2016
Article by Selin Sinem Erciyas and Ozge Atilgan Karakulak

The European Patent Convention (EPC) is a part of Turkish national domestic law and is enforced in Turkey under Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution. Furthermore, it was formed under international agreement and as a result cannot be claimed as unconstitutional.

The EPC law can be applied directly in Turkey and therefore it is legally binding. Alongside other member states, Turkey also declared and signed the EPC and as such recognises the competence and the decisions of the institutions which have been introduced in the convention. It is assumed that the member states are not able to declare their commitment for certain bodies of the European Patent Office (EPO), such as decisions only made by the examination division or appeal board. This may seem an unusual statement, however, it should be stressed as it is one of the most important proceedings in Turkey, it has been argued by IP courts that EPO decisions are only binding for Turkey if the decision can be grounded on an explicit provision in the EPC.

However, in some situations IP courts interpret the EPC in such a way that renders it ineffective. For example, in an invalidation action filed against a European patent, the IP court did not conduct any examination on patentability requirements and decided that this patent is null and void as the independent claim is a second medical use claim, however, the patent was granted before EPC 2000 revisions, that is, before Article 54/4 and 54/5 on second medical use claims were introduced in the EPC.

Since it is known as a party to the EPC, Turkey transfers its authority on patentability examination and grant decisions of the European patent applications to the EPO. Accordingly, European patents granted by the examination division of the EPO enter into the national phase before the Turkish Patent Institute (TPI). Furthermore, with regard to the filing of the Turkish translation of the official bulletin, the European patent is granted by the TPI as a final granted national patent.

However, the European patent, validated and granted in Turkey via this route, is situated somewhere in between the EPC and Turkish national law due to the differences between two systems. Unfortunately the interpretation of the IP courts cannot be used to help a European patent to be in a more justified position.

The main reason for this is that Turkish patent law introduces a pre-grant opposition system and therefore it does not allow any amendment of the patent after the grant decision has been made, with the exception of material mistakes made in the patent. Whereas the opposition procedure starts after the grant decision before the EPO and the opportunity is given to amend/limit the European patent during this period.

As an international agreement, the EPC is applied with priority in Turkey and therefore the European patent is allowed to make amendments/limitations due to the amendments carried out before the EPO, although the same right is not given for national applications. This exists as a form of conflict in the system however the outcome of this is mostly experienced in invalidation actions which are filed against European patents validated in Turkey.

According to Turkish Law, only a patent that is ultimately granted can be subject to an invalidation action. In other words, patent applications are not considered as concluded and therefore they cannot be subject to an invalidation action. Our interpretation is that the legislator has hereby foreseen the effects of the ‘pre-grant’ opposition system in Turkish Law and the possibility to amend the patent until the final grant decision is made. This would result in uncertainties emerging in the scope of protection of the patent in the case of a court action, which means an invalidation action is filed against a pending application.

On the other hand, the European patents which were granted in Turkey right after the first grant decision of the EPO become immediately subject to invalidation actions. This is because although first grant decisions made by the EPO seem to be final, the final scope of protection is still not determined due to the ongoing opposition/appeal procedure that takes place before they reach the EPO.

In these actions, the European patent holder refers the ongoing procedure before the EPO and demands for the delay of the invalidation proceedings. However, in most cases such a demand is rejected, without considering what will happen if the patent is maintained in an amended form by the EPO after the national court orders for invalidation of the Turkish validation of the same patent. We are of the opinion that the patent maintained before the EPO is entitled to be re-validated in Turkey which therefore means that the IP court trial on the ex-version of the patent will be entirely useless. The same would apply if the patent is revoked by the EPO before the national invalidation action is concluded.

In a similar case where the European patent was prematurely made subject to an invalidation action, the Supreme Court finally considered our arguments and overruled the court of first instance decision on the grounds that the Court should have asked the TPI whether a European patent subject to an invalidity action in Turkey should be deemed in the application stage or granted status if the opposition/appeal procedure before the EPO is still ongoing at the date of the action.

The court of first instance has not set a decision on this yet, however the matter has been discussed at an international conference in Istanbul by one of the most experienced IP court judges. Upon query whether it is necessary for the judge to consult this matter with the TPI as ordered in the Supreme Court decision, the judge stated that he can decide about this issue by himself and moreover he is of the opinion that European patents which are under the EPO process should not be made subject to invalidity actions. In other words, the conclusion of the EPO process should be awaited with regards to these actions.

However, the same judge stated that the decision to wait for the conclusion of the EPO procedure may prove problematic due to the lengthy opposition and appeal processes which, in some cases, can take between four and six years. A very important comment made by the judge was on the balance provided in the German system for such situations. Since there is not a ‘bifurcated’ system in Turkey unlike in Germany, delaying the invalidation action may provide the patent holder with an unfair advantage since the same patent can be enforced against third parties in the form of a finally granted patent.

Although there may be timing issues in applying the EPO decision or delaying a national decision on a European patent until the EPO’s final decision, the IP courts and the Supreme Court is of the same opinion that the EPO is the decision maker regarding the European patents and the decision of the EPO is binding for Turkey.

This clearance is nonetheless vital and should be emphasised; however, this point of view is not adopted by one of the IP judges in Istanbul in relation with the decisions of the EPO EBoA and the European patents granted by the EPO in light of the case law of EBoA.

This particular IP court judge ruled on an infringement action depending on a second medical use claim of a European patent that this European patent granted before EPC 2000 amendments has ‘Swiss-type’ claims and therefore it is essentially related to a medical treatment method, and methods for treatment are not patentable inventions according to Article 52(4) of EPC 1973, however, the EPO had granted patents to such medical treatment methods relying on G5/83 decision of EBoA, established by by-passing the provisions of the EPC. According to the court decision, ‘even if Turkey was a party to EPC, EBoA decisions were not binding for Turkey’. Therefore the European patent in question was considered to be related to a ‘medical treatment method’ and should be declared null and void in Turkey.

The IP court evaluated that paragraphs 4 and 5, brought to Article 54, with EPC 2000 revisions, constituted an exception to Article 52(4) of EPC 1973 and opined that only after the EPC 2000 revisions had it become possible to protect such ‘medical treatment methods’ with a patent.

At this point, it is beneficial to mention that the same point of view has not been adopted by the other IP judges or by the Supreme Court in Turkey. In fact the reasoning of the Supreme Court is a milestone in Turkish patent law as it bars the legal ambiguity about legitimacy of the second medical use patents and acknowledges the legitimacy of such patents in Turkish patent law.

A rather noteworthy interpretation in the IP court decision was related to the legitimacy of the European patents granted due to case law of EBoA. The IP court is of the opinion that Turkey is only bound with the EPC not with the EBoA. EBoA decisions are binding on BoA, which hears appeal proceedings and BoA decisions are binding on the department, whose decision is appealed. As long as the facts, constituting grounds for decision are the same, a dissenting decision may only be given by providing grounds. In this respect, it cannot be said that the decision of an EPO examination and/or opposition division, which resulted with the grant of a patent in line with EBoA decision, was from a lack of legal basis and therefore the patent in question was null and void.

On the other hand, the EBoA case law on second medical use claims clearly has its grounds in the EPC of 1973. This was also touched upon in the Supreme Court’s decision. The Supreme Court acknowledged that there was no explicit provision for second medical use in EPC 1973 and it was first introduced to EPC in 2007. However, second medical use claims were protected as per G05/83 of EBoA.

The Supreme Court, very cleverly, argued that the root of the issue was that it was an invalidity argument in dispute and it needed to be evaluated as per Article 129 of the Patent Decree Law in Turkey. Therefore, the Supreme Court focused on the provisions of the Decree Law and noted that the Decree Law has not been amended during EPC 1973 and EPC 2000. In this respect the patentability requirements and non-patentable inventions defined in Decree Law have not been changed and remain the same today.

Finally, the Supreme Court stated that as there was no explicit provision at the date of grant of the patent in discussion related with the patentability of the second medical use claims, the validity of the patent should be evaluated as per usual to general requirements of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. In accordance with this, the first instance court should have evaluated if the patent in question possesses novelty over prior art irrespective of whether it is a second medical use patent or not.

The Supreme Court has apparently emphasised that Turkish law does not exclude second medical use patents from patentability. In fact, it remarkably ruled that there was no actual difference between the EPC 1973 and EPC 2000 in terms of second medical use patentability, thereby essentially allowing second medical use patents granted before the entry into force of the EPC 2000.

Although there appears to be a discrepancy in interpretation of the force of the EPC by different IP courts, our experience indicates that mostly by help of Supreme Court’s ruling, the EPC still very much holds an international position and maintains power over national law.

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
Selin Sinem Erciyas
Ozge Atilgan Karakulak
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Erdem & Erdem Law
Moroğlu Arseven
 
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”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Erdem & Erdem Law
Moroğlu Arseven
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must 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