Source: http://www.stanadvoka.com/en/litigation
Timestamp: 2018-03-20 01:54:00
Document Index: 353258057

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 162', 'Art. 165', 'Art. 165', 'Art. 100', 'Art. 137', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 100', 'Art. 52', 'Art. 83', 'Art. 61', 'Art. 123', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 61', 'Art. 61', 'Art 61', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 54', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 115']

Litigation - Stan Advoka Patent
UTILITY MODEL NULLITY/ SELF-DECLARATORY NATURE OF THE UTILITY MODELS SYSTEM
The Turkish utility model system has a self-declaratory nature in the sense that no search and examination is conducted. The turbulent nature of the system e is acknowledged by lawmakers in Art. 162 DL #551, explicitly specifying that usefulness of the content of a Utility Model document is not under official guarantee.
CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS OR METHODS
Legal bases for invalidating a utility model right in Turkey are given under Art. 165 DL #551. Referring to Art. 165 DL #551, it is similar to Art. 100 EPC providing a list of legal situations where revocation of a European patent can be requested.
DISPUTES IN COURT PROCEEDINGS OTHER THAN SUBSTANTIAL PATENT LAW DISPUTES
Disputes in court proceedings other than patent law disputes entail entitlement to court proceedings, late submission of facts, evidence and arguments, unsubstantiated grounds, organic relation between a concerned party and another party of parallel court proceedings being already terminated, experimental use exemption to patent infringement and continuing insolvency proceedings with simultaneous patent law disputes. These secondary issues can unexpectedly influence the course of the legal procedure in many cases. Our patent attorneys act as members of court panels as appointed by specialized IP courts of Istanbul. The court having competence in a specific invalidity case is determined according to the place of business of the proprietor if any or to the place of business of the professional representative (Art. 137, DL # 551).
NULLITY AND INFRINGEMENT CASES COMBINED
Proprietors have the right to initiate court actions against alleged infringers. However, alleged infringers can also proactively institute declaratory judgment actions for non-infringement. A party may also file a declaration of non-infringement along with a request to revoke the patent in question.
Referring to Art. 129 DL #551, it is similar to Art. 100 EPC providing a list of legal situations where revocation of a European patent can be requested. These opposition grounds cover patentability under Art. 52-57 EPC, enablement under Art. 83 EPC and subject-matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed (analogous in the cases of a divisional application or an Art. 61 application) under Art. 123(2) EPC. Similarly, Art. 129 DL #551, citing the same grounds as legal bases for nullity, it adds a fourth ground in which case the right to obtain a patent (entitlement) is in dispute. Art. 129 DL #551 is different from Art. 61 EPC in that it stipulates that a court action can be initiated only by the inventor of the patent, entitlement of which is under dispute, while Art. 61 EPC is silent about this.
It can be noted that judges usually consider the estimated time amount of the EPO procedure before it is finalized. It is likely that the EPO opposition procedure causes stay of national court procedure. As European appeal procedure takes substantially longer period, the court is more likely to decide itself on the merits of the case. In terms of the relevancy of certain documents, a court panel is appointed, whose interpretation of the case will be influential. The judges are only legally qualified. The final judgment of a court is mostly in line with the report of the panel of experts in revocation and infringement proceedings. The panels are generally composed of technically and legally qualified members. New panels can be established until at least one additional report supports a given party’s legal position.
A grace period of twelve months is applicable provided that the applicant himself directly discloses part of the technical content of the invention within a period of 12 months prior to the filing or priority date (if any). The general principle also extends to disclosures by third parties as in the case of an EPC Art 61 situation (Entitlement disputes).
EARLIER FILED & ON OR LATER PUBLISHED APPLICATIONS
DL #551, Art. 7 prescribes that applications with an earlier effective date but published on or later that date (analogous to the situation specified in Art. 54(3) EPC) form part of the state of the art in terms of novelty assessment.
APPLICATIONS WITH SECOND MEDICAL USE CLAIMS
An exclusion of the absolute novelty requirement as specified by EPC2000 also applies to European patents validated in Turkey under the EPC as DL #551 Art. 4 prescribes that international agreements take precedence over national law (except the European validations granted before 13.12.2007). It is therefore to be noted that, in contrary to EPC validations, PCT national phase entries are to be regarded as regular national applications to be examined under the DL #551.
NON-EXAMINED PATENT APPLICATIONS & UNEXAMİNED PATENTS
An applicant can request grant of an unexamined patent to be in force for seven years even if the search report drawn up is not favorable. However, any third party can request examination of the unexamined patent by paying the prescribed examination fee during the lifetime of the granted document. An unexamined patent returns to pre-grant stage so that courts can take no decision in an infringement case based on the unexamined patent during the course of the examination procedure. An infringement action by the proprietor of a patent granted without examination is countered by an examination request of the assumed infringer.
Requesting examination for an unexamined patent as a proactive measure can be the case even when no infringement action is filed against the requester. It is possible to file third-party observations analogous to EPC Art. 115 submissions where no official fees are payable.
The Supreme Court of Appeal in the capital is the court of last resort in all IP matters. The Judges have legal backgrounds so that only any substantive procedural violation of the first instance court is examined rather than the technical merits of the case and the decision of the first instance can be set aside while the case is remitted with a substantiated decision.