Source: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/patents/patents-2017/spain
Timestamp: 2017-06-23 05:08:46
Document Index: 139882233

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 51', 'art. 26', 'Art. 69', 'art. 105', 'art. 138', 'art. 138', 'art. 55']

Patents 2017 | Laws and Regulations | Spain | ICLG
Home Practice area Patents Patents 2017 Spain
A patent can be enforced by filing an infringement claim before the Mercantile Court corresponding to either the domicile or the place of infringement. This means that infringement cases can be brought anywhere in the country. The usual choices are Madrid and Barcelona, where higher volume has led to specialisation and greater legal certainty. 1.2 What has to be done to commence proceedings, what court fees have to be paid and how long does it generally take for proceedings to reach trial from commencement?
A claim must be filed. This is a one-shot process whereby all factual and legal arguments on the merits must be given in the initial claim submission with no opportunity to do so later, due to the very drastic rule of preclusion which is applicable under the Spanish procedure. This rule also obliges the claimant to file all documentary evidence, including expert reports, at the same time, again with no opportunity to do so later. Court fees in Spain are quite low, and would usually lie below €3,000 for the first instance.
The Court, having checked that the claim meets the formal requirements, serves the defendant with notice of the claim, giving him 20 working days to answer. The Court then sets a date for a Preliminary Hearing, in which the facts under dispute are fixed and the judge decides which evidence will be heard. The trial date is set at this Hearing, which is usually around 12 months after the filing date, depending on the Court’s workload.
Discovery may be sought both before and/or after initiating proceedings. If requested before initiation of proceedings, then a prima facie case must be established, and the request is subjected to a proportionality review. Paradoxically, this is not the case where it is requested within the main proceedings, where it is normally granted automatically. The extent of disclosure is far more limited than in common law countries, and is generally limited to accounts information. Success of the discovery depends to some extent on the cooperation of the adverse party, as no penalties comparable to those for contempt in common law jurisdictions exist. Third parties are generally not subjected to any type of discovery. Discovery before the initiation of proceedings is requested by filing a submission which sets out the factual and legal grounds as well as any documentary evidence. If opposed, this can lead to a Summary Hearing, where witness and expert evidence would typically be heard.
Discovery within the main proceedings must be made in the initial claim, and will be reviewed in the Preliminary Hearing as part of the proposal of evidence. This is very straightforward, and is usually automatically granted without any consideration of the likelihood of success of the action, which is often upsetting for defendants.
Following filing of the claim, the Court itself carries out service on the defendant, who receives a time limit of 20 working days to file an answer to the claim, following the same rules on arguments and documentary evidence as set out for the claimant in question 1.2 above. The Court will then set a date for the Preliminary Hearing, at which the parties are required to state which facts they admit and which facts they dispute. The judge then fixes the facts under dispute and allows each party to make a proposal regarding evidence to be heard at the trial in order to decide the matters under dispute, i.e. no evidence may be proposed in regard to a matter not under dispute. All documentary evidence, including expert witness reports, will have been filed at this stage. However, no consideration of this or any other evidence takes place before the trial.
The evidence proposed and accepted at the Preliminary Hearing is heard at trial in this order: examination of parties; witnesses; expert witnesses; inspection of items by the judge; and viewing or hearing of recordings. Each party first examines, followed by cross-examination, with no re-direct. In each case, the plaintiff’s evidence is heard first. In general, pleaded arguments may not be changed after the initial claim and answers have been filed. Limited changes are allowed at the Preliminary Hearing, but only if the defendant raises an unexpected fact or argument. No changes are allowed thereafter. 1.6 How long does the trial generally last and how long is it before a judgment is made available?
Trial length is usually about two to four hours. Judgment is rendered in writing within about two months, although this may take much longer if the court has a large backlog.
Spanish judges only receive legal training and rely on expert witnesses with regard to technical matters. The Mercantile Courts are specialised in IP, unfair competition, company law, bankruptcy and transport law. Most patent cases are heard in Madrid and Barcelona, where specialist knowledge is greater due to the higher volume of cases. Three sections of the Barcelona court deal with all patent and publicity suits which are filed. A similar arrangement exists in Madrid.
Only right holders and/or exclusive licensees can normally bring an infringement action. Proceedings seeking revocation or a declaratory judgment of non-infringement can be brought by a party adversely affected by the patent, which has generally been interpreted quite generously by the Courts as including all competitors in the relevant sector.
Declaratory judgments are available exclusively for non-infringement to an adversely affected party. The claimant must be either exploiting the potentially accused product or have made real and effective preparations to do so. Hypothetical cases are not allowed. Non-infringement of a product meeting a technical standard could be pursued, provided that such a product were a reality in the sense outlined. Hypothetical claim coverage over a technical standard could not be the subject of a declaratory action.
The answer to both questions is yes. Art. 51 of the 1986 Spanish Patent Act mirrors the rules on indirect infringement contained in art. 26 of the 89/695/EEC Agreement relating to Community Patents.
Importation of the product directly obtained from the process is an act of infringement.
The doctrine of equivalents pursuant to the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC is consistently applied by the Spanish courts.
Invalidity can be raised within the infringement proceedings, either as a defence plea with effect only between the parties, or as a counterclaim seeking the revocation of the patent. It may be raised in parallel to an opposition which can lead to contradictory rulings on the substantive issues.
Other grounds for invalidity include that the patent: is not an invention; has no industrial application; comes under an absolute exclusion e.g. business method or software; is contrary to public order; has insufficient disclosure; goes beyond the scope of the content of the original application; and the proprietor is not entitled to the patent.
Proceedings may be stayed by the Court upon application of one of the parties in the case of Court proceedings, provided that both sets of proceedings may not be joined into one. The agreement of both parties is required in the case of administrative proceedings, e.g. opposition proceedings at the EPO. Revocation proceedings of a granted Spanish national patent can only be brought before a court. 1.16 What other grounds of defence can be raised in addition to non-infringement or invalidity?
The other grounds for defence include: statutory limitations (e.g. private use, Bolar exception); exhaustion of rights; prior use right; and where it can be shown that action has already been brought against the person who has placed the infringing product on the market.
Yes. Preliminary injunctions are granted where (i) urgency, and (ii) a prima facie case can be shown. Final injunctions are granted after trial on the merits. When granting a preliminary injunction, the court will set the amount of a bond to cover any damages which might be caused.
The plaintiff can choose between (i) the infringer’s profit or his own lost profit, and (ii) equivalent royalty. Assessment is usually carried out by a court-appointed auditor within the infringement proceedings.
Other forms of relief include: cessation of all infringing acts, e.g. offering for sale; seizure; transfer of ownership of infringing products to plaintiff; transformation or destruction of infringing product; and publication of the ruling. Cross-border relief has never been granted.
While settlements are common enough, they are nowhere near as common as in some common-law jurisdictions due to the lower cost of going to trial in Spain. Therefore, a more stubborn party has less incentive to avoid a trial.
An infringement action is time-barred after five years from the time when it could have been brought.
All aspects of the first instance judgment of the Mercantile Court may be contested in second instance before the Appeal Court.
Typical costs on infringement are €70,000 to €150,000. Similar figures are applicable on validity. Costs of approximately €60,000, €80,000, and €90,000 can be recovered in e.g. the Madrid courts, for claim values of €1 million, €2 million, and €3 million, respectively. Thereafter, 0.5% of the remaining claim value is applicable.
Spain is neither a party to the Agreement nor to the enhanced cooperation underlying the Regulation.
A Spanish national patent cannot be amended post-grant under the current Patent Act, although this will become possible when the new Act comes into force in 2017. The Spanish part of a European patent can be amended at the EPO pursuant to art. 105a EPC.
A Spanish national patent cannot be amended in revocation/invalidity proceedings, although this will become possible when the new Act comes into force in 2017. The Spanish part of a European Patent can be amended in revocation proceedings pursuant to art. 138.3 EPC.
The amendment pursuant to art. 138.3 EPC must be a limitation of the scope of the patent. A similar rule is implemented in the new Act.
A compulsory licence may be granted by the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office on four grounds: the patent is not sufficiently exploited; export needs; dependent patents; and public interest. Compulsory licences are extremely rare in Spain.
A patent term cannot be extended, except in the case of medicinal products availing of a supplementary protection certificate of up to five years from the date of patent expiry (five-and-a-half years if the product is for paediatric use) under EU Regulation 469/2009.
The Spanish Patent Act essentially mirrors the exclusions of arts. 52 and 53 EPC, e.g. scientific discoveries, business methods, software, against public order, surgical methods, etc.
The applicant may choose to have the patent examined or not. If he does have it examined, there is a pre-grant opposition period for two months following publication. If he does not, then only non-binding observations may be filed. Although examination cannot be requested for utility models, they are always subject to pre-grant opposition, which can be filed within two months of publication.
The decision to grant or not to grant may be appealed to the courts, but only with regard to matters considered by the Patent Office, e.g. novelty and inventive step cannot be mentioned in the appeal against a decision to grant an unexamined patent.
Ownership disputes are settled in the civil courts. Any matter concerning priority could be included in the appeal in the administrative courts against the decision to grant or not to grant.
The Spanish Patent Act has an extremely restrictive grace period of six months, which is almost identical to that provided for under art. 55.1 EPC (abuse and officially recognised exhibitions). In addition, tests carried out by the applicant are also included, provided that these do not amount to commercial exploitation or offering. 5.7 What is the term of a patent?
EU Regulation 608/2013 concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights applies. A decision granting or rejecting an application is taken within 30 working days.
Spanish competition law contains provisions concerning abuse of dominant position similar to those contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. A defendant in a patent infringement suit could bring an action based on abuse of dominant position via a counterclaim.
EU Regulation 316/2014 on technology transfer agreements can be used to prevent agreements whereby two competitors use a licensing agreement to share out markets between themselves, or where an important licence holder excludes competing technologies from the market. Agreements between competitors whose combined market share is less than 20% are exempt. The figure is 30% for non-competitors.
The Spanish Patent Act of 24 July 2015 will come into force on 1 April 2017. Changes include the elimination of the non-examination prosecution track, currently chosen by over 90% of applicants for Spanish patents, and also elimination of the local novelty and inventive requirement for utility models, which will now be judged against the same worldwide prior art as patents.
The Supreme Court, which had previously made only rare incursions into patent law, has confirmed the use of the all-element rule in infringement in a judgment which makes a detailed study of the UK Improver questions and the degree of obviousness necessary in the second question. This follows a previous judgment which confirmed the use of the problem-and-solution approach to analyse inventive step. The settled case law of the main Appeal Courts in Madrid and Barcelona has thereby been confirmed and made binding for all courts in Spain.
The regulations implementing the 2015 Patent Act may be published.
The level of patent litigation has held up well in Spain despite the economic crisis. This may have to do with the fact that patent applications are growing significantly, in addition to the tendency of competitors to cut more corners when market share is threatened.