III. Invalidity claims in intellectual property proceedings

Presentation on theme: "III. Invalidity claims in intellectual property proceedings"— Presentation transcript:

1 III. Invalidity claims in intellectual property proceedings
3.知识产权程序中的无效请求 Daniel Alexander QC 丹尼尔·亚历山大 英国王室法律顾问 Barrister, Visiting Professor of Law, University College, London 大律师，伦敦大学学院法学客座教授 IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010 IPR2 -民事诉讼法研讨会-2010

2 Infringement and validity claims 侵权和无效请求
Invalidity issues can arise in a number of kinds of proceedings. 无效问题可以在许多程序中出现 Patent infringement - where the defendant challenges the validity of the patent. 专利侵权-被告质疑专利的有效性 Trade mark infringement – where the defendant challenges the validity of the trade mark or contends that it should be revoked for non-use. 商标侵权-被告质疑商标的有效性或者主张它应当因不使用而被撤销 Registered design infringement – where the defendant alleges that the design relied on is invalid. 侵犯注册外观设计-被告声称原告依赖的外观设计是无效的 IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010 IPR2 -民事诉讼法研讨会-2010

3 Types of registered rights in the UK 英国注册权利的类型
Patents (see Patents Act 1977 and EPC)/专利（见1977年专利法和欧洲专利公约） 2 Kinds of patents effective in the UK./在英国两种专利有效 UK national patent./英国国内专利 European Patent (UK designation EP(UK)), granted by the European Patent Office (EPO). 欧洲专利（指定英国），由欧洲专利局授权（EPO） Trade Marks/商标 2 kinds of trade marks effective in the UK./在英国两种商标有效 UK national trade mark./英国国内商标 Community Trade Mark (effective throughout the EU)./欧共体商标（在整个欧盟范围内有效） Registered Designs/注册外观设计 2 kinds of registered design rights in the UK/英国有两种注册外观设计权 UK registered designs./英国注册外观设计 Community registered design (effective throughout the EU). 欧共体注册外观设计（在整个欧盟范围内有效） IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010 IPR2 -民事诉讼法研讨会-2010

4 Validity challenges – patents 有效性质疑-专利
The validity of a UK or EP(UK) patent may be challenged/一项英国或欧洲（指定英国）专利的有效性可能被质疑 In the High Court or Patents County Court in response to infringement proceedings or separately/在高级法院或县专利法院应对侵权诉讼时或单独被提出 In the Intellectual Property Office in separate proceedings./在知识产权局的单独程序中 The validity of a EP may also be challenged (opposed) in proceedings before the EPO within 9 months of the grant of a patent. 一项欧洲专利的有效性还可能自授权之日起9个月内在欧洲专利局的（异议）程序中被质疑 If there are infringement proceedings pending, the defendant must bring a validity challenge in the High Court. The defendant cannot then chose the IPO as a forum for such proceedings./如果有悬而未决的侵权诉讼，被告必须在高级法院提出有效性质疑。被告因此不能再选择知识产权局作为该种程序的平台。 In such a case, the infringement and validity proceedings will be heard together and the patent will be interpreted the same way for the purpose of both proceedings. 在这种情形下，侵权和有效性程序将会被同时审理，专利将会被为了两种程序的目的以相同的方式解释。 IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010 IPR2 -民事诉讼法研讨会-2010

5 Competing jurisdictions and the patent cat 竞争性管辖权和专利猫
“Before we proceed further, it is worth briefly recording the position about the litigation concerning the sister patents in other European countries. DSS contend that the patent in suit and its sister patents are infringed by euro banknotes. Imaginatively but overoptimistically it tried to bring central proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the EU. On 5th September 2007, that Court held, not surprisingly, it had no jurisdiction to hear patent infringement proceedings even against an EU institution, case T-295/05. /“在我们进一步叙述之前，值得简要指出关于涉及其他国家姊妹专利的诉讼的状况。DSS主张涉诉专利及其姊妹专利被欧元货币系统侵犯了。它充满想象力但过分乐观地尝试着在欧盟一审法院提起中央诉讼。2007年9月5日，法院不出意外地裁定，它无权审理即使是反对欧盟机构的专利侵权程序，案件T-295/05” Meanwhile the ECB had started revocation proceedings in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria. These are ongoing. We were given an update of the position in each country. In Germany and France there have been first instance decisions. None of the other proceedings have got that far. Kitchin J‘s decision came first. The German Federal Patent Court (the Bundespatentgericht) did not agree with him by a decision of 27th March It held the patent valid. Then, on 9th January 2008, the French Court (le Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) agreed with Kitchin J and disagreed with the German Court. On 12 March 2008 the Dutch Court agreed with the German Court. In sporting terms, the score is currently 2-2 to the ECB at first instance level. /与此同时，欧洲央行已开始在法国、德国、荷兰、西班牙、意大利、比利时、卢森堡和奥地利的撤销程序。这些还在进行中。我们得到了每个国家的最新立场。在德国和法国出现了一审裁决。其他国家的程序都没有那么远。首先产生的是Kitchin J的裁决。德国联邦专利法院（Bundespatentgericht）不同意他的意见，通过2007年3月27日作出的决定而维持专利有效。然后，在2008年1月9日，法国法院（ le Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris ）赞同Kitchin J而不赞同德国法院。 2008年3月12日荷兰法院赞同德国法院。用体育术语来说，对欧洲央行来说目前在一审层级的比分是2比2. All this is deeply regrettable. It illustrates yet again the need for a one-stop patent shop (with a ground floor department for first instance and a first floor department for second instance) for those who have Europe-wide businesses. The case illustrates another point too: Kitchin J records at [88] that “the positions adopted by DSS before this Court and the CFI are radically different.” As he went on to say: /所有这一切都令人深感遗憾。这再次说明了一个（有基层部门作为一审和二级部门作为二审的）一站式专利商店以服务于那些有欧洲范围内业务之企业的需要。此案还说明了另一点： Kitchin J 在【88】记载道：“DSS在本法庭和原审法庭中采取的立场是根本不同的”。然后他继续说道： This case therefore seems to me to be a very powerful illustration of why it is desirable to try infringement and validity issues together, where at all possible. If they are tried separately it is all too easy for the patentee to argue for a narrow interpretation of his claim when defending it but an expansive interpretation when asserting infringement. Professor Mario Franzosi likens a patentee to an Angora cat. When validity is challenged, the patentee says his patent is very small: the cat with its fur smoothed down, cuddly and sleepy. But when the patentee goes on the attack, the fur bristles, the cat is twice the size with teeth bared and eyes ablaze.” Jacob LJ in European Central Bank v. Document Systems International (2008). “因此，本案在我看来是对为什么在所有可能的情况下渴望对侵权和有效性问题尝试作共同审理的有力说明。当它们被分开审理时，专利权人很容易在防卫其权利时作出一个狭义的解释而在主张侵权时作出扩张的解释。Mario Franzosi 教授将专利权人比作一只安哥拉猫。当其有效性遭受质疑时，专利权人说其专利很小：一只皮毛平滑垂顺、可爱和昏昏欲睡的猫。但是，当专利权人攻击时：猫的皮毛竖起，露出双倍尺寸的牙齿和凶狠的目光。” Jacob LJ在文件国际系统诉欧洲央行（2008）一案中 IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010 IPR2 -民事诉讼法研讨会-2010

6 Validity challenges – trade marks 有效性质疑-商标
A UK registered trade mark may be challenged before the IPO or before the court. 一个英国注册商标可能在知识产权局或法院被质疑 A Community trade mark may be challenged before the UK courts in infringement proceedings or before the central EU trade mark office (OHIM) in Alicante (Spain). 一个欧共体商标可能在英国法院的侵权诉讼中或在位于阿利坎特（西班牙）的欧洲中央商标局（欧洲内部市场协调局）被质疑 If there are infringement proceedings before the Court, the defendant must bring the invalidity proceedings in the High Court. 如果在法院有侵权诉讼，被告必须在高级法院启动无效程序 IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010 IPR2 -民事诉讼法研讨会-2010

7 Registered designs 注册外观设计
UK Registered designs 英国注册外观设计 May be challenged in the IPO or in UK court in response to infringement proceedings. 可能在知识产权局或在英国法院应对侵权诉讼时被质疑 Community registered designs 欧共体注册外观设计 May be challenged centrally (at OHIM) or in national courts in response to infringement proceedings. 可能在中央（欧洲内部市场协调局）或在国内法院应对侵权诉讼时被质疑 IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010 IPR2 -民事诉讼法研讨会-2010

8 Role of the IPO in invalidity proceedings 知识产权局在无效程序中的角色
Invalidity proceedings involving a UK registered right or a EU right effective in the UK are served on the Intellectual Property Office which has a right to take part in the proceedings. 涉及英国注册权利或在英国境内有效的欧盟权利的无效程序将会送达知识产权局，它有权参与该程序。 Sometimes, the IPO will comment on the issues raised in proceedings but it is relatively uncommon. 有时，知识产权局会就程序中出现的问题作出评论，但这相对不太常见。 It is more common for the IPO to comment on applications to amend patents (which may be made in response to an application on validity). 更常见的是知识产权局对 修改专利的申请（可能是为应对一项有关权利有效性的申请而作出的）作出评论 IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010 IPR2 -民事诉讼法研讨会-2010

9 Stay of infringement proceedings 侵权程序的中止
In the UK it is rare for infringement proceedings to be stayed pending validity proceedings. The ordinary rule is that they will be heard together. 在英国很少有侵权程序中止以等待有效性程序。通常的规则是它们将会被同时审理。 In certain cases, one aspect of the case may be much more complex than the other and the court can (and sometimes does) divide the proceedings, hearing one first. 在特定案件中，案件的某一方面可能比另一方面要复杂得多，法庭可以（并且有时确实也）分开两个程序，先审理一个。 For example, if the issue on infringement concerns a short question of interpretation of the patent, the court could decide that issue first and stay the question of validity. 例如，如果与侵权有关的问题涉及一个与专利解释有关的简短问题，法庭可以先决定该问题和保留有效性的问题。 Or, if the issue of validity concerns a short point of whether a document was prior published, the court may stay the infringement aspect and decide the validity point first. 或者，如果有效性的问题涉及某一文件是否被在先公开的简短问题，法庭可以中止侵权方面而先决定有效性这一点。 These “preliminary issues” are not very common. It is more common for the Court of Appeal to say that it wishes to hear argument only on one aspect of the appeal. If decided one way, it may be unnecessary to hear the other aspect./这些“初步问题”并不是很常见。更常见的是上诉法院会说它希望仅仅只审理某一方面的上诉主张。如果以同一种方式裁决，可能没有必要去审理另一方面。 IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010 IPR2 -民事诉讼法研讨会-2010

10 Opposition in the EPO – a UK view 欧洲专利局的异议-英国视角
“16. At the time of making of the Treaty it was thought that opposition proceedings would be relatively quick. But that has not proved to be so. Partly this is due to the success (in terms of numbers) of the EPO. There may be other reasons- for instance I have long wondered whether if the 9 month period were abolished, people would not bother to oppose unless they had to whereas now they have to get their opposition in often before they know whether the patent matters commercially. In the UK when the time limit for attacking a patent in the patent office was abolished in 1977, the result, contrary to what was expected, was an almost total collapse of proceedings for revocation in the patent office. It may well also be that matters could be improved by way of procedure, for instance by tightening up on adjournments and avoiding as far as possible remission of cases from a Board of Appeal back to the Opposition Division as frequently happens now. Whatever the reasons, it is currently the case that opposition proceedings can take many years. /“16.在制定条约时一般认为异议程序应当相对较快。但事实证明并非应当如此。这部分是由于欧洲专利局的成功（在数量上）。可能还有其他原因-例如我一直在想如果9个月的期限被取消，人们不必再急于异议，除非他们必须如此，而现在他们经常必须在知道专利事务如何商业化之前提交其异议。在英国，当1977年攻击一项专利的时限被取消后，其结果，与预期不同的是，几乎是专利局整个撤销程序的崩溃。事情也许还可以通过程序方式得到改进，例如通过控制休庭和尽可能避免目前经常发生的案件从上诉委员会发回异议部门的情形。不管原因如何，目前的情况是异议程序可能耗费多年。 17. No one pretends that the compromise is satisfactory- it was a fudge at the time and remains so. Unless and until sensible judicial arrangements are put in place, the litigation of European Patents in various national courts and the EPO will remain a messy, expensive and prolix business. One would hope that the politicians would find a way to put various national interests on one side for the sake of European industry as a whole. But despite attempt after attempt that has not yet been possible.” per Jacob LJ in Unilin v. Berry (2007). 17. 没有人会认为妥协是令人满意的-这在当时是胡说现在仍然如此。除非及直至合理的司法安排到位，欧洲专利在各国法院和欧洲专利局的诉讼仍将是混乱、昂贵和冗长的业务。人们希望政治家们能找到一条为了欧洲产业这一整体利益而将不同的国家利益置于一边的路径。但尽管不断地尝试，现在还是不可能。” per Jacob LJ在Unilin 诉 Berry (2007）一案中 IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010 IPR2 -民事诉讼法研讨会-2010

11 Stay pending EP opposition in the UK 欧洲专利异议裁决前，英国程序的中止
In principle the preferred option is to stay UK proceedings if there are corresponding EPO proceedings. And it may in some circumstances be the case that an interim injunction could serve to hold the fort whilst these proceed. 原则上，倾向性的选择是中止英国程序，如果有相应的欧洲专利局程序。并且在某些情况下，可以适用一个中间禁令，以在中止期间维持现状。 But all must depend on the circumstances and particularly the timing. 但一切必须以案情尤其是时间为依据。 Normally, although a stay is in principle the preferred course, it would be wrong to prevent the patentee from enforcing his patent here if the EPO opposition will not be concluded reasonably soon-as all too often it sadly is not. T 通常而言，尽管中止在原则上更好，但欧洲专利局的异议往往不能在合理期间内审结（遗憾的是经常如此），这时便不能阻碍专利权人执行其专利权。 “Take this case: the action was started here in May 2002 and was finally over by November The EPO proceedings are still running and could still be doing so at the end of next year. Business needs to know where it stands-and a patentee is entitled to enforce his patent without undergoing the risks inherent on the cross undertaking in damages – especially if the period involved could involve years." (Unilin v. Berry). “以该案为例：诉讼于2002年5月开始并于2005年9月结束。欧洲专利局的程序还在进行之中而且可能在下一年结束的时候仍然如此。商业主体需要知道它的处境——专利权人有权实施专利，而不去承担损害赔偿交叉承诺固有的风险——尤其是如果牵涉的时间将可能达到数年。” (Unilin 诉 Berry). IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010 IPR2 -民事诉讼法研讨会-2010

12 Guidance on stay of proceedings pending EPO – factors (1) 中止程序以等待欧洲专利局的指南-因素（1）
Wide discretion “should be exercised to achieve the balance of justice between the parties having regard to all the relevant circumstances of the particular case”. /应当采取广泛的自由裁量，在考虑个案相关情况的基础上，平衡各当事人之间的权利。 It is the discretion of the Patents Court, not of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal would not be justified in interfering with a first instance decision that accords with legal principle and has been reached by taking into account all the relevant, and only the relevant, circumstances. /这是专利法院的自由裁量权，而非上诉法院。上诉法院不应干涉一审法院裁决，如果一审法院裁决符合法律原则，考虑并仅仅了所有相关因素。 Neither the EPC nor the 1977 Act contains express provisions relating to automatic or discretionary stay of proceedings in national courts, they provide the context and condition the exercise of the discretion. /无论是欧洲专利公约还是1977年专利法，都没有明确规定国内法院自动或酌情中止程序，它们提供了行使自由裁量权的背景和条件。 The possibility of the duplication of proceedings contesting the validity of a patent granted by the EPO is inherent in the system established by the EPC. In practice national courts exercise exclusive jurisdiction on infringement issues and they have concurrent jurisdiction with the EPO on validity issues. /对一项欧洲专利局授予专利有效性质疑之程序的重复可能性是欧洲专利公约建立的制度所固有的。在实践中，国内法院对侵权问题有排他的管辖权，而与欧洲专利局在有效性问题上同时享有管辖权。 The Contracting States and the UK Parliament contemplated that the national Patents Courts should be able to determine the same issues of patentability as the EPO. The resultant legislation allowed the determination by the national court and the EPO to proceed at the same time. Indeed, there is nothing in the EPC or the 1977 Act to prevent the commencement of revocation proceedings in the Patents Court on the very date of the grant of the patent by the EPO. /缔约各国和英国议会认为，国内专利法院应当在可专利性问题上与欧洲专利局有相同的决定权。由此形成的立法允许国内专利法院与欧洲专利局的决定同时进行。事实上，在欧洲专利公约和1977年专利法中没有什么可以阻止自欧洲专利局授权之日起在专利法院启动撤销程序。 The length of time that it will take for the respective proceedings in the national court and in the EPO to achieve some certainty on the issue of the validity of the patent in suit so that business knows where it stands will generally be the most significant factor in the discretion. /认定在国内法院和欧洲专利局各自的程序中将要花费的时间长度以获得涉诉专利有效性问题上的某种确定性，从而使商业企业明白自己所处的位置——这一般是自由裁量过程中最为重要的因素。 IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010 IPR2 -民事诉讼法研讨会-2010

13 Appeals/ 上诉 Principles governing appeals of validity cases are the same as other cases. 调整有效性案件上诉的原则与其他案件相同。 The defendant in the invalidity case will be the proprietor of the right in question. An exception is an appal from a decision of a Board of Appeal at OHIM before the General Court, where formally the defendant is the administrative body and the challenger to the right is a third party. 无效案件的被告将会是涉案权利的财产所有人。一项例外是在“普通法院”对欧洲内部市场协调局上诉委员会的决定提出上诉，在此正式的被告是行政机构，而质疑权利的是第三方。 The UK Court of Appeal is reluctant to overturn a first instance finding of obviousness, but will do so in an appropriate case. 英国上诉法院不愿意推翻一审中对显而易见性的认定，但在适当的案件中也会如此做。 In certain intellectual property cases, there is a specialist tribunal for certain particular rights. For example, for appeals against decisions of the UK IPO concerning registration of trade marks, there is a specific appeal tribunal (the “Appointed Person”) which is the final avenue of appeal with a more limited costs regime. This is an alternative to an appeal to the Court of Appeal. 在特定知识产权案件中，会有关于特定特殊权利的专家审判小组。例如，在反对英国知识产权局有关商标注册决定的上诉中，有一个特别上诉小组（“被指定人”），这是一个费用较低的最终上诉渠道。这是在上诉法院提起上诉的一种替代选择。 IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010 IPR2 -民事诉讼法研讨会-2010

14 Factors affecting a stay (2) 影响中止的因素（2）
The Patents Court is entitled to refuse a stay of the national proceedings where some commercial certainty would be achieved at a considerably earlier date in the case of the UK proceedings than in the EPO. It is true that it will not be possible to attain certainty everywhere until the EPO proceedings are finally resolved, but some certainty, sooner rather than later, and somewhere, such as in the UK, rather than nowhere, is, in general, preferable to continuing uncertainty everywhere. /专利法院有权在某些商业事实可以在英国程序中明显较早于欧洲专利局的日期确定时拒绝中止国内程序。确实，在欧洲专利局的程序最终结束之前，不可能获得所有地方的确定性，但在某个地方（例如英国）有一定的确定性（宜早不宜迟），还是比哪里都没有确定性要好。 Much weight should be given to an assertion by a commercial party that it has a good reason for resisting a stay. Normally a party is the best judge of its interests. /如果商业机构提出，他有很好理由反对中止，应当多考虑该商业机构的意见。通常来讲，当事人是其自身利益的最佳裁判。 Other considerations in the particular case may affect the balance of justice, such as the additional costs in the duplication of proceedings, the order in which the proceedings were commenced and so on, but, in general, the other factors, through relevant, are of lesser importance than achieving some commercial certainty somewhere sooner. A global assessment of the relevant material, supported by valid reasons, is normally sufficient to justify the decision to refuse or to grant a stay. (Glaxo v. Genentech – 2008)/在特定案件中的其他考虑可能会影响到正义的天平，例如在程序重复中花费的额外成本，程序开始的顺序，等等，但一般来说，其他因素，即便是相关的，与取得某些地方的商业确定性相比也不太重要。在充足理由的支撑下，对相关材料进行全球性评估，通常足以证明拒绝或授予中止决定的正当性。 (Glaxo 诉 Genentech – 2008) IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010 IPR2 -民事诉讼法研讨会-2010

15 Harmonised European litigation? 协调一致的欧洲诉讼？
Certain rights can be enforced in national courts for the whole EU (Community trade marks, Community Registered Designs) and an injunction granted covering all member states. 特定的权利可以通过国内法院在整个欧洲执行（欧共体商标、欧共体注册外观设计），相关禁令可以覆盖所有成员国。 Certain rights are at the moment purely national (patents). 特定的权利现在还只是纯粹国内的（专利）。 Proposals for a Community patents court for centralised determination of infringement and validity for the whole EU have faced recent problems from the ECJ. 建议成立欧共体专利法院以统一全欧盟的侵权和有效性认定最近在欧洲法院遇到了一些问题。 IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010 IPR2 -民事诉讼法研讨会-2010

16 Thank you 谢谢！ IPR2 - Workshop on Civil Procedure Law – 2010