Source: https://eqe-d.blogspot.com/2014/02/our-answer-to-dii-part-of-d-2014_26.html
Timestamp: 2019-01-19 18:48:35
Document Index: 51036665

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art.28', 'Art.54', 'Art.54', 'Art.54', 'Art.54', 'Art.54', 'Art.64', 'Art.28', 'Art.133', 'Art.54', 'Art.54', 'Art.54']

DeltaPatents : EQE-D Deltapatents EQE Paper D: Our answer to the DII-part of D 2014
This should not be considered as a perfect answer that a candidate can generate during the EQE itself:
It has been made by more than one experienced tutor;
We have not included all the reasoning and explanation a real answer would normally have; for example, we skipped intermediate steps in patentability which are required in a real exam answer for full marks;
We have not considered alternative answers, which may -if well-reasoned- score a significant or even all of the marks available for a certain topic;
We do not know where the points will be awarded and how many;
We do not know whether and where bonus marks may be available;
You will not need all of our comments to pass.
We expect our answer below to score in a range of 40-50 marks out of 60 (corresponding to 50-58 marks when including the "easy marks" for steps not explicitly indicated).
1.a) Current situation
EP-FR3 (CLC):
first and only application, now granted and in force in CZ, for the process for producing Z.
No prior art at all, so validly granted.
With this patent, CLC can stop GD from:
using the process in CZ and other EPC states where the patent is in force,
as well as from “using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes at least the product obtained directly by that process” (Art.28(1)(b) TRIPS), i.e., product Z.
Note: As the claim is directed to the process, no protection is obtained for Z as such (which would have been the case if the claim would have been a product-by-process claim), only for the directly obtained product, i.e., Z if actually manufactured using the process.
There is no corresponding patent in India,
so BC is free to manufacture Z with this process in India.
You are however not free to import Z into CZ nor in any other EPC state where EP=FR3 is still in force.
EP-FR1 (CLC):
validly claims priority from FR1 which is the first application for subject matter K+X and B/C/D + X.
No relevant prior art against its only claim (to K+X).
Note: in a complete answer, you need to give a full argumentation in support of this conclusion – you will lose a significant number of marks if not explicit writing down all the intermediate steps.
So, EP-FR1 was validly granted in autumn 2012 as is in force in, e.g., CZ.
So, CLC has valid protection for K+X in CZ and can stop you from:
manufacturing any cream composition comprising A/B/C/D + X in CZ, a
as well as from selling those in any EP state where EP-FR1 is in force.
This protection includes A+X+Y, that you intend to introduce on the market soon.
As it seems you not yet started exploitation in CZ,
you are not yet liable for Compensation reasonable in the circumstances [Nat.Law.table IIIA, col.2]
EP-FR2 (CLC):
The subject matter of EPCZ1 (as far as in common with CZ1: A+X+Y) is Art.54(3) prior art;
PCTCZ2 is potential Art.54(3) (if it enters).
A+X+Y+W is novel over both, because it has W.
EPFR3 (process for producing Z) and EPFR1 (X+K) are Art.54(2) prior art.
A+X+Y+W is novel over both (includes W),
as well as inventive due to greater stability than compositions of EPFR1.
So, CLC can get valid protection for A+X+Y+W in CZ and -if they validate, after grant- can stop you from:
manufacturing any cream composition comprising A+X+Y+W in CZ,
as well as from selling those in any EP state where EP-FR2 will be validated.
This protection however
does not include A+X+Y without W, that you intend to introduce on the market soon,
and also does not include B/C/D+X+Y without W, that you intend to introduce later.
EPCZ1 (GD):
A/B/C/D+X+Y is an OR-claim of A+X+Y OR B/C/D+X+Y, of which both alternatives have different priority [G 2/98 – citation not needed in DII]
Eff.date for A+X+Y is f.d. of CZ1=16/4/12;
Eff.date for B/C/D+X+Y is f.d. of EPCZ1=10/8/12.
A+X+Y is novel and inventive over EP-FR1, as the addition of Y “enhances the stability to a surprising extent”;
B/C/D+X+Y is inventive over EP-FR1 and novel over EP-FR2 which is Art.54(3) (only) against the claim B/C/D+X+Y.
So, GD can get valid protection for A/B/C/D+X+Y in FR and GD can stop his competitor CLC
from manufacturing any cream composition comprising A/B/C/D+X+Y in FR,
as well as from selling those in any EP state where EPCZ1 will be validated. This protection also includes A+X+Y+W that CLC developed.
This protection however does not include A/B/C/D+X without Y, which CLC can thus make and sell – if you have no other rights covering these cream compositions.
EPCZ1 is only a patent application now,
so does not yet give any (provisional) protection in France, as long as no translation of the claims is made available to the public (by a notice of the filing of the translation appearing in the official bulletin (BOPI)), or communicated to the user.
Once provisional protection is effected, it provides the right to Damages and possibly seizure of the articles infringing the patent application in France. The French court hearing the infringement action will however stay proceedings until the patent is granted.
PCTCZ2 (GD):
the 31m time limit to enter the EP-phase expired 7/3/11+31m -> 7/10/13 (Mon),
so today (25/2/14) is too late to enter the EP-phase normally.
Thus, in the situation as-is, PCYCZ2 is deemed to be withdrawn for EP,
as well as for any other states/regional offices.
So, GD cannot (yet) prevent CLC from:
using the process to manufacture A/B/C/D without using Z, as described and claimed in PCTCZ2,
neither in FR, nor elsewhere.
(Also not in CZ, as CZ2 was withdrawn shortly after filing).
Note: Maybe some marks for also mentioning the national applications / patents, as far as alive/ in force.
1.b) Actions in next four months
W.r.t. GD's own patent applications:
GD was invited under R.53(3) to provide a translation of CZ1 into En/Fr or De.
The time limit for filing the translation is 6m from the mention of the publication of the SR [GL (Sept 2013) A-III, 6.8.1],
so translation needs to be filed by 18/12/13+6m->18/6/14 (Wed).
If we do not file the translation,
priority is lost, and
EP-FR2 is novelty-destroying Art.54(3) against the claim to A+X+Y,
so we do not get protection for A+X+Y, but only for B/C/D+X+Y.
Within same 6m time limit:
must request examination (in CZ, with translation into EN),
pay examination fee and
pay designation fee.
Request PACE a.s.a.p.
As you (GD) did not yet get a loss-of-rights, can still enter the EP-phase using FP.
Note: if the loss-of-rights was delivered to our office, but did not yet come to use because of the financial difficulties, we can use RE to remedy as we only miss the filing fee (see below) [PCT R.49.6].
We request FP this immediately, or within 10d+2m from the loss-of-rights communication that we will receive somewhere in the future, by -for each act missed for which FO is available- completing the omitted act and paying the associated FP fee.
However, we also need to be in time with paying the renewal fee.
The renewal fee in respect of the third year has fallen due under R.51(1) on 31/9/2013; however, the 31m limit expires 8/10/13, so actually due on 8/10/13.
So, too late to pay the renewal fee without additional fee.
Need to pay renewal fee + 50% additional fee by 8/10/13+6m->8/4/14 (Tue), which also sets the time limit to do FP for the other acts of R.159(1).
So, by 8/4/14:
specify PCT application as filed as documents on which the EP grant procedure is based;
pay filing fee (incl possible page fee) as omitted act, plus a FP fee of 50%;
as only ISA for CZ is EPO, no need to pay search fee;
as ISR was published 18/12/13:
no need to request examination,
nor pay examination fee, nor designation fee yet
–> have until 18/6/14 (Mon);
Also pay the renewal fee + 50% additional fee.
Upon entry, you may waive the R.161/162 (in EP entry form) and request PACE examination,
to come to a quick grant of the new process to produce A/B/C/D without using Z.
If you comply with the national provisional protection requirements (file translation of the claims to INPI (French national office) or communicate to CLC),
you can effectively stop CLC from manufacturing in FR.
If you validate this in the states where CLC manufactures, so at least in FR (validation automatic under London Agreement) and where they sell, you can stop CLC from:
manufacturing in FR and
selling where you validated.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to het quick national protection in FR by doing a -remedied- direct entry from PCTCZ2's international phase into the national phase of FR, as FR has closed their national route.
W.r.t.CLC’s patent applications and patents:
EP-FR1 and EP-FR3 (CLC):
Check validations and renewal fee payments of the CLC granted patents
in CZ and
in“various countries”,
to see where they are in force and where not.
Check whether the stability of the composition A+X+Y+W disclosed in EPFR2 is so poor that
it could be considered to lack inventive step over EP-FR1 (hint in par [012]) or
to lac sufficiency of disclosure, and
–if we can give reasonable argument or raise reasonable doubt- file third party observations accordingly with the EPO.
A is obtained using a multi-step process that uses Z as a starting material, and
EPFR3 only claims a process for the production of compound Z.
EPFR3 thus only gives protection via Art.64(2) EPC / Art.28(2) TRIPS for the directly obtained product from the process, which is Z.
A is not directly obtained but via the multi-step process, and is thus not protected via EPFR3.
So, GD can continue to import A from BC India,
and GD can -in view of the far higher efficiency- switch to A produced via their own new process that does not use Z (par.017]) as soon as they have that industrially operational in EP or in IN.
There are also no other CLC patent rights covering the new process which would prevent you from obtaining compound A with the new process.
But CLC's EP-FR1 K+X patent claim prevents you from using A+X+Y, so you are not free to use compound A for your planned product launch of the cream composition comprising A + X + Y into the EP market in the near future (par[009]), also not when you use A is obtained via your new process.
restore pendency of PCTCZ2 and come to quick grant.
We can also check from who/ from where CLC gets his A/B/C/D, and
check national attorneys of those non-EPC states whether PCTCZ2 can also be revived there,
so GD can get a valid patent to GD's new process to make A/B/C/D,
so that GD can stop CLC from using the new process in those non-EPC states.
Your client –GD– is situated in CZ, so needs at least freedom to manufacture in CZ.
Your client thus wishes:
that his competitor –CLC– had no relevant patent rights in CZ that can stop him from manufacturing, or
that his competitor is willing to grant him a license to the relevant patent rights so that he can start/continue to manufacture without the risk of being stopped in view of the patent rights of the competitor.
Your competitor –CLC– is situated in FR, so want least freedom to manufacture in FR.
to have (valid) patent protection in France, via a French national patent or an EP patent in force in FR, or
to have patent applications in place that can give him these rights (i.e., a French national application, a EP application or an international patent application that can later on enter the EP-phase and later on validated -automatic via London Agreement for France- and kept in force in France).
CLC can stop GD from:
manufacturing in FR and selling any cream composition including some compound of K + X, by enforcing EP-FR1 against GD, wherever EP-FR1 is validated;
This includes A+X+Y and B/C/D+X+Y that GD intends to put on the market; and
manufacturing or selling A+X+Y+W by enforcing EP-FR2 against GD.
However, as A+X+Y is better, GD’s business is not affected by this.
As all GD’s cream compositions are within the scope of protection of the broad claim to K+X, GD need a license from CLC.
GD can stop CLC from:
producing A+X+Y as well as B/C/D+X+Y in FR by enforcing EP-CZ1 against CLC in FR, as well as selling wherever EP-CZ1 is validated;
using our new process for producing A/B/C/D as chemical product by enforcing Euro-PCTCZ2 against them;
producing/making/selling A/B/C/D as directly obtained from our process, as well as,
using A/B/C/D as directly obtained from our process to manufacture cream compositions comprising A/B/C/D – here, the burden of proof is on us that they use our process.
As our new process is far more efficient than the process CLC is using now (and BC is using now to manufacture for us), GD will be very interested in a license from GD to use the process.
(Cross-)licensing proposal
So, we can propose a cross-license:
CLC gives license to GD for EP-FR1 whereby CLC allows is to manufacture in FR and sell in any EP state any cream compositions including some compound of K + X;
GD gives license to CLC for EP-CZ1, whereby GD allows CLC to use A+X+Y (better even than A+X+Y+W that they developed themselves) (to manufacture in FR; sell in EP) and/or
GD gives license to CLC for Euro-PCTCZ2 to use our new process for manufacturing A/B/C/D, in/as cream compositions as well as as “raw” chemical product.
Roel & Pete, 26/2/2014
Posted by Roel van Woudenberg at 5:19 pm
Roel van Woudenberg 26 February 2014 at 19:22
Who made any comments in his exam paper relating to 'handled by one of our employees [...] also represents our company before the EPO'? in par [001] (more thans indicating that that is allowed - Art.133(3)EPC)?
Anonymous 26 February 2014 at 21:25
Thanks for your analysis. I can follow you, now that I am sitting on my sofa, relaxed and with no time pressure. That "A+X protection including A+X+Y" got me, as well as "A+X+Y including A+X+Y+W". I just didn't see it, that for PROTECTION the situation is completely different than for PATENTABILITY.
Roel van Woudenberg 27 February 2014 at 16:06
hi Peter, I am sorry to say so, but that is a very serious error... Also, it suggests you did not practice easier DIIs, or at least did not discuss any with an experienced tutor or an experienced European or national patent attorney: 'dominant', 'dependent', and otherwise overlapping patent rights are in _every_ DII! Fingers crossed, Roel
Pete Pollard 4 March 2014 at 09:39
We have been doing this for several years, and we present something close to a perfect answer. But the exam committees look at the real answers from candidates - we have seen many cases where the marking has been shifted because either almost no-one saw an issue or because it was done very badly.
I look every year at real papers from candidates who pass and they are full of mistakes, and that is acceptable because it is an exam. Also when discussing their answers, most people only remember the things they missed, and not the things that they did correctly. Every year we hear in March from people convinced they failed and hear from them in August that they passed.
It is really true that you only need 1/2 the points to pass, so if you missed 1/2 of the things you still have a good chance. This is particularly true on D, where it is possible to collect a lot of points for fairly ordinary, unsurprising comments.
You should also realise that the Exam. Committees are trying to pass candidates that they think are good enough. They really do this. They are not trying to fail you by jumping on any mistake you made.
So try and put it out of your mind until August. I know it is difficult, but no-one knows what the level will be to pass for any of the papers. And you do not know how they will evaluate your answers.
The paper esplicitly asks only the patent situation about creame, not for process or product composition.
So in question 1, i have disclosed only for the patent about creame (for luck of time, obviously). I supposed that for full marks in question 1, is enought. in question 2 or 3 (not remeber) i disclosed about process patents.
Roel van Woudenberg 28 February 2014 at 11:40
dear Anonymous, (do you have a name?) DII is not, and never, only about the explicit questions that the client posed, but also about the implicit questions and wishes/needs that the client has!!! (We practice this extensively in our D Methodology Courses) Would you in real life only answer the client's explicit questions, and not warn him for even more important risks that you identify immediatelly from what he tells you but is not aware of that he would better have asked? Or about opportunities now to better support his business needs? As you will do this in real life if you are fit-to-practice, you need to do so in the exam, otherwise you have no chance to pass!! DII is about your capabilitiesto give a good legal advice to a quasi-ignorant, real life cliënt, and is not as 'simple' as answering not a legally unambiguously phrased DI question for a legal audience, the Exam Committee. Regards, Roel
marcaurelioiii 28 February 2014 at 12:56
Hi, Roel, i'm sorry for my name, now i have read the rule of the blog ;).
I'm agree with you that D2 have a lot of implicit questions and in fact i tried to answer also to other implicit questions (but not for internal rappresentative).
In Paper D2 of 2013, the question was: speaking about the patent situation (generally), this year instead the question was speak about the patent situation of the cream composition (specifically). It's obviusly that answering also for the situation of other patent, it's not a mistake, but the time was very very pressing this year in my opinion. I have spoken about composition patent in other questions.
Roel van Woudenberg 1 March 2014 at 14:32
Hi marcaurelioiii (thx for your name ;-)),
If you didnot discuss the EPFR3 under Q.1 as you did not consider that to relate to "cream compositions" that is -to our best knowledge as how the Exam Committee marks the paper- perfectly OK if you discussed the patent situation w.r.t. EPFR3 under Q.2 -and Q.4-, where you really need its assessment.
We however prefer to always discuss all (EP/PCT) patent applications with the first question of the D-paper that asks for the patent(ability) situation, as you van only AFTER you have discussed a patent (application) know what is explicitly and implicitly relates to and how far its scope of protection extends. And, as the Exam Comittee does not require you to repeat the discussion again under "Answer Q.2" if you discussed it already under "Answer Q.1", this is not a waste of time.
To what you did is OK, as well as what we did!
Anonymous 28 February 2014 at 07:44
Was there not a sufficiency problem with EPFR1 since it only specifically mentioned (B-D)+X, but not A+X?
Whilst I believe it did generally disclose the family K+X, compound A was the most unstable of all of A-D (as mentioned by the client in paragraph [006]), which made me think that EPFR1 was not necesarilly entitled to claim K+X, but rather only (B-D)+X, as it had not disclosed that X would have worked with the most unstable of all the compounds A-D, i.e. A?
I thus concluded that EPFR1 was only entitled to claim (B-D)+X. Could be wrong though!
Nick 28 February 2014 at 10:28
I also raised this point in the exam. I wasn't brave enough to state that EPFR1 was only entitled to (B-D)+X, but I suggested that the client may not be infringing based on this issue, since it was the most unstable, but suggested to be safe it would be better to consider that you may well be infringing...since you wanted to maintain a good working relationship with CLC
Roel van Woudenberg 28 February 2014 at 15:34
I interpretered the phrase as 'of all compounds of family X, it is most important to stabilize A, so the inventionof CLC is very valuable. We, GD,were however able to stabilizing A+X even better by also adding Y. There is no hint that A+X does not have stabilizing adv (would be lack of inv.step rather than insuffiency in my opinion - but depends much on unknown facts of the case). Also no hint that the skilled person would not understand how to make a cream composition A+X (for suffuciency, enough to be able to make, achieving stabilixing effect not needed if not required by the claim wording).
Peter 28 February 2014 at 18:38
fully agree with your analysis, thanks for that...
Just a quick question, I did a serious mistake and interpreted the claim of EPCZ1 A or B or C or D + X + Y quasi as K + X +Y ... (because I read the phrase that A or B or C or D are all part of K and so on)
So I concluded that EP-FR 2 is A. 54 (3) against this claim as it already anticipates A + X + Y and therefore suggested to include a disclaimer (as A. 54 (3) is possible) to disclaim W. Argued that also on the fact that protection for X + Y + W is not as valuable as without as W worsens the effect of stability...
Then I based all further exploitation issues and proposal for Cross licence etc. on this conclusion...
Obviously I dont score anything for the above mentioned mistake but will I get some marks for the exploitation ? (Which is more or less like you indicated that it is crucial to get EP-FR 1 and we could give to PCT-CZ2 and/or EP-CZ1 (claim 2) ?
Of course you cannot tell how many marks would be available but is it killing my DII paper fully ?
Roel van Woudenberg 1 March 2014 at 16:48
It was not my intention to give you one or more sleepness nights... and certainly no nightmares...
I think the error of taking claim "A/B/C/D+X+Y" as "K+X+Y" is not necessarily fatal, as long as you made very clear that that is your interpretation of claim 1 of EPCZ1, and as long as the rest of your answer is consistent with it.
Which it seems to be at least as far as patentability is concerned (your K+X+Y does not benefit from priority from CZ1, so EPFR2 is Art.54(3) describing the combination A+X+Y[+W], which is novelty-destroying for claim 1 K+X+Y with K being a genus of species A), and you also indicate already that the overlapping/dependent/dominant right discussion, infringement and licensing discussion is consistent.
To be honest, we do not know in detail how the Exam Committee deals with these kind of errors in marking. If many candidates made the same mistake, they will be more foregivable than if you are the only one. But it would not surprise me if it makes you loose only about 5 marks - as you did not really simplify the whole discussion: you lost the multiple-pri for an OR-claim marks, but maybe regained some by your Art.54(3) discussion; your competitor has the broadest right, and will not have a specific right to A+X+Y (only for A+X+Y+Z) but you don't either -- cross-licensing will thus also not be easier, so a good consistent solution may give you still quote some marks.
Please let us know what score you obtained (email to roel.van.woudenberg AT deltapatents.com)
Benjamin Bouvier 1 March 2014 at 17:18
I personnally stated that (B, C or D)+X+Y of EPCZ1 had no inventive step in view of EPFR1 (A54(2)) because Y had no further technical effect in these compositions (it only has one on A+X).
Benjamin Bouvier 6 March 2014 at 10:32
Roel van Woudenberg 6 March 2014 at 16:08
I did not respond immediately to also give other people a chance to reply... ;-)
EPFR1 is published before EPCZ1 and CZ1, so indeed full Art.54(2). EPFR1 describes K+X and B/C/D+X, but not A+X. With family K consisting of only A/B/C/D (part [002]. 3rd sentence), A+X seems not inventive over EPFR1 and the general knowledge K={A, B, C, D}.
CZ1 describes that adding Y to A+X enhances the stability to a surprising extent (part [006], 4th sentence) - so, the stability improvement is enhanced to an unexpected degree. So, A+X+Y is inventive over A+X - GL (2013) G-VI, (ii) last sentence, mutatis mutandis / G-VII, 12.
I interpreted -and still do so- par [006] "we realised that the stabilisation effect of the combination of X and Y was also exhibited by cream compositions comprising any one of the other compounds of the family (K)" as referring to the enhanced effect by the words "the stabilisation effect of the combination of X and Y was also exhibited". So, that would also make B/C/D+X+Y inventive over B/C/D+X.
My interpretation is supported by the logic of par.[005] to [007] from which one can conclude that GD knew about EPFR1, and understood from EPFR1 that CLC only tested the combination of X with B/C/D - as that is the only species of K specifically disclosed in EPFR1. GD then tested whether X also increases the stability of a cream containing A (par.[006], first three sentences), which it did (so: A+X is better than A alone; but not inventive over B/C/D+X of EPFR1 -- GL G-VII, 3.1 (iv)). During that development work, they also discovered that further adding Y increases the stability even further (so: A+X+Y is inventive over A, K, A+X, K+X and B/C/D+X). During the continued development work, they then realized that the same = the further, and even to a surprising extent, increased stabilization effect, is exhibited also by B/C/D ([par.007], first sentence).
So, Y does give a further (=enhanced to a surprising extent) technical effect and makes all combinations A/B/C/D+X+Y inventive over (A/)B/C/D+X - GL (2013) G-VII, 12.
Anonymous 6 March 2014 at 16:10
I really liked sitting the exam, it was fun, and I managed to work according to my plans. Whether that is enough is a question for the people marking it...so, I will wait for the results and enjoy my free time in the meantime.
Roel van Woudenberg 6 March 2014 at 16:10
Were all 4 "fun"? A, B, C and D??
You must have been one of the few who considered so!!!
Anonymous 6 March 2014 at 16:15
Yes, I like exams ;-)... It is the interesting version of "chess" in my view. Does not mean easy to pass or that my solutions are any good. It is just fun to enter into a competition with the people who came up with the papers. But, unfortunately most people did not seem to enjoy themselves...also, the worst thing to happen is. .same time next year...
Roel van Woudenberg 6 March 2014 at 16:18
I appreciate to "finally" have seen somebody posting a positive message on the blog - although many other candidates will not at all share your feelings as to the EQE!
I hope people share some more of their thoughts on whether the DII (and the other papers) were enjoyable, or (just) a nightmare?!?!
Benjamin Bouvier 6 March 2014 at 23:46
Thank you for taking the time to answer. The sentence in [006] indeed seems to orientate on InvStep, although there was no other clue.
I also enjoyed the 4 parts of the exam although i'm not sure i'll pass! The bad part was the amount or work implied at home before the exam, but the exam itself was more like a game to me.
Roel van Woudenberg 10 March 2014 at 09:52
Good to see that some people actually liked this year's paper.
But,there must also be some significantly different feelings from other candidates that sat the D exam this year about the DII: please feel invited to share your thoughts, feelings and expectations!