Our client - a large international food manufacturing company - filed an invalidation action with the IP Court against the Rospatent decision to invalidate grant of RU patent No. 2591831.
The disputed invention relates to a nutritional composition and its use for nutrition, as well as its use in obtaining a composition for the treatment and/or prevention of the development of immune diseases. One of the arguments of the claim was non-compliance of the patent with «industrial applicability» patentability term due to the fact that the claimed composition did not contain any nutritional components. Other arguments of the claim related to the lack of confirmation of the implementation of the purpose related to the treatment or prevention of the development of various diseases and the non-compliance of the patent with «inventive step» and «novelty» patentability terms.
The patent owner did not agree with the arguments of the opposite party, but exercised his right to change the scope of legal protection and submitted an amended claim. The Board of the Chamber for Patent Disputes supported the position of the party which had filed the claim in part of the non-compliance of the invention according to the initial claims with «industrial applicability» patentability term. In this regard, the patent was partially invalidated and a new patent was issued according to the amended claims.
Due to the fact that the Chamber for Patent Disputes did not agree with the arguments about the non-compliance of the patent with the «industrial applicability» term regarding the lack of confirmation of the implementation of the purpose, which consists in the use of a nutritional composition in various medical fields, as well as non-compliance with the «inventive step» term, we filed an invalidation action with the IP Court against the decision of Rospatent.
The Court invalidated the decision of Rospatent in part, ordered Rospatent to invalidate the granted patent with the amended claims and grant a new patent with the exclusion of the alternative from one of the independent claims, as well as with the complete exclusion of the other independent claim.
The client was represented in Court by Aleksey Zalesov, Julia Dutikova and Julia Kolomytseva.
For more details about the case please follow the link.