Matthias Stolmár shares his insights into how to best file a patent application in Germany over at IPWatchdog, one of the most leading news sites for IP. He explains not only how an application can be validly filed, but also describes the pros and cons of utility models and outlines a strategy for making use of the pecularities of the German system. In cooperation with Morningside Translation, the interview is also available as a video:
The Financial Times has just published its annual report on Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms 2020. Stolmár & Partner is very proud to be featured, for the first time, among the top 160 patent firms in Europe.
Dr Matthias Stolmár, founder of the firm, commented: “We’ve been working relentlessly to deliver outstanding service to our national and international clients and we’re delighted to receive this level of recognition from our clients and peers. This will be a great motivation for my team of highly motivated attorneys who strive to provide excellent advice on a day-to-day basis.”
The FT Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms report selected IP Firms in Europe for their patent prosecution and patent strategy consultation services. This classification is the result of an exhaustive study of the sector carried out by FT in cooperation with Statista. This year, 10 000 patent attorneys and in-house counsel were invited to recommend firms in general and in six different technical fields. A total of 2900 clients and professionals participated in the survey.
Parties with a legitimate interest may ask the boards of appeal to deal with their appeals rapidly (see Notice from the Vice-President Directorate-General 3 dated 17 March 2008 concerning accelerated processing before the boards of appeal (OJ 2008, 220) and Article 10 (3) Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA 2020).
However, as many of us know, most of these requests for acceleration of appeal proceedings are not be accepted.
Acceleration is generally a matter for the exercise of the board's discretion at the board’s discretion. While trivial reasons do not warrant acceleration, there is no fixed standard of proof (T 895/13). To quote other positive examples, acceleration has been acknowledged as appropriate, for example, when infringement proceedings were threatened or if the public had an interest in the early resolution of disputes (T 239/16, T 734/12).
One more successful example can now be added to the list: Dr Matthias Stolmár, even though only acting as straw man, recently succeeded in requesting acceleration of the appeal proceedings in T1732/18.
The reasons relied upon in the request can be summarized as below:
15(1) of the Rules of procedure before the Boards of Appeal 2020
The case is more than ready for issuance of the Summons to attend Oral Proceedings. Additionally, given the number of 13 Opponents, only Oral Proceedings could conclude the case in a timely manner without further unnecessary delay.
Replies to the Grounds of Appeal Opponents/Appellees as well as Patentee’s reply to the responses of the Opponents were already filed in February 2020.
Thus, according to Article 15(1) in combination with Article 1(2) of the RPBA 2020 the Board of Appeal could have issued the Summons to attend Oral Proceedings at the beginning of 2020.
No existing comparable case law
Further, the current case could be a fundamental and landmark decision since it is not comparable to current dosage regiment case law.
The opposed patent was revoked on the basis of not involving an inventive step according to Art. 56 EPC.
Length of proceedings
The Appeal proceedings should conclude as soon as possible, since the have been going on for a very long time.
The patent was granted after almost 8 years and the Opposition proceedings lasted 21 months longer than the published early certainty objective.
Term of the opposed patent
Patentees as well as the Opponents have a legitimate interest to obtain a decision in the Appeal proceedings well before the patent expires.
The patent has already entered the 16th year and will expire within five years.
Common interest of legal and market certainty
There is no certainty about validity of the patent.
Currently, competitors are banned to enter any market in Europe where the patent is in force despite it having been revoked in the first instance.
Consequently, it is apparent that a decision is needed as soon as possible.
Stolmár & Partner is pleased to announce that the Board of Appeal followed our arguments and decided to grant the request for acceleration.
Mark your calendars: on 17 July 2020, the Pharma and Life Science Day is taking place for the 7th time in Munich.
What to expect:
Participate in lively debates on best practice in patent and trademark protection
Get the latest updates on pharma case law from across the globe
Meet successful start-ups and learn from the strategy of big players
Get the real answers on protecting AI in Life Sciences - using patents or other strategies
Network with in-house counsels at an exclusive venue
What others say:
“I enjoyed it very much, not only the excellent lectures but meeting with known and not-yet-personally-known colleagues. I noted the next year date – I am striving to attend.”
“Many thanks again for the most enjoyable and informative IP event.”
“A day full of interesting presentations from Unfair Competition, Biosimilars and the Nagoya Protocal to Parallel Trade & the FMD.”
We are looking forward to seeing you in July during the Pharma and Life Science Day! Sign up for our newsletter here.
Back in November, Dr. Matthias Stolmár was invited to present his thoughts on the recent decision T1085/13 of the EPO's Boards of Appeal at the 2019 WIPF forum in the panel "Patent Challenges in the Pharma Industry". The talks and lively discussions have been recorded and broadcasted on HeTV and are now even available on Youtube.
Stolmár & Partner, ARNOLD RUESS and Meyerlustenberger Lachenal are happy to invite you to our annual Pharma- and Life Sciences days on 12 July 2019 in the Suresnes Schlössl in Munich.
