European IP Snapshot – May 2016 欧洲知产快讯 – 2016年5月

China
Bringing you regular news of key developments in European intellectual property law.

持续为您提供欧洲知识产权法律的关键更新。

PATENTS
专利

T 1370/11 On-demand property system/MICROSOFT, 11 March 2016

T 1370/11 请求式性能管理系统/微软, 2016年3月11日

A European Patent Office appeals board has dismissed an appeal against a patent application for a computer programme that was rejected for lack of inventive step.

The board disagreed with the argument that a computer programme or computer-implemented method was inventive because it reduced the time of a previously used method.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

欧洲某专利局的上诉委员会驳回了关于某电脑程序因缺乏创造性而被拒绝授予专利的上诉。

申请方声称该电脑程序或计算机执行方式减少了以往的模式所耗费的时间,因而具有创造性。专利局的上诉委员会否定了上述说法。

关于该决定的全文,请点击这里

American Science & Engineering Inc v Rapiscan Systems Limited, [2016] EWHC 756 (Pat), 11 April 2016

美国科学工程公司诉Rapiscan系统有限公司, [2016] EWHC 756 (Pat),2016年4月11日

In finding that a patent for a mobile x-ray scanner was valid and not obvious over the prior art, the High court considered the way in which each party had instructed their experts.

While the Claimant had asked their expert to consider the prior art and assess what would have been obvious developments before showing him the patent, the Defendants had first shown their expert the patent and then asked him to consider the question of obviousness. Both approaches had difficulties.

The fact that a particular step did not occur to the Claimant’s expert when reviewing the prior art did not automatically mean that this step was not obvious.

Conversely, the Defendant’s approach risked taking into account hindsight.

The Court confirmed that the correct question for the experts to consider was whether, “viewed without any knowledge of the claimed invention, the differences constituted steps which would be obvious”.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

高等法院发现关于移动X光扫描仪的专利申请是有效的,然而相较于现有技术的并没有取得显著进步。关于这一点,法院认为需要从双方对他们专家的指示进行判定。

原告在对其专家展示该技术前,要求其专家参考现有技术并指出自己的设备所能取得的显著改进可能是什么。而被告则首先对专家展示了自己的技术,再要求其考虑关于显著改进的问题。事实上,双方所采取的手段都有一定的难度。

即使原告方的专家在审查已有技术时没有想出特定的具有显著进步的改进方式,这并不必然意味着该公司的这种改进是不显著的。

相反,被告所采用的方式则有着事后诸葛亮的嫌疑。

法院确认对于专家而言,其需要考虑的在于,以对该技术没有任何认识的眼光来看,这项技术相较于现有技术来说,是否已经取得显著的改进。

关于该决定的全文,请点击这里

TRADE MARKS AND PASSING OFF
商标以及假冒

Grenade (UK) Limited v Grenade Energy Limited & ANR [2016] EWHC 877 (IPEC)

格瑞内德有限责任公司诉格瑞内德能源有限责任公司,ANR [2016] EWHC 877 (IPEC)

Summary judgment was granted in a passing off claim.

The defendant had already admitted misrepresentation and accepted that the claimant had goodwill and therefore the Court found that establishing damage was inevitable.

In addition, the sole director of the defendant company was also held liable for passing off as a joint tortfeasor.

Please let us know if you would like a copy of the full text of this judgment.

关于假冒侵权的索赔诉求,简易判决已被下达。

被告已承认其有失实陈述的行为且原告的商品享有较高声誉,因而法院认为造成损害是不可避免的。
此外,被告公司的独立董事作为共同侵权人需要对该假冒行为承担相应责任。

想获取该判决的全文,请联系我们。

Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v EUIPO (Case C-226/15 P), 13 April 2016

澳洲苹果和梨种植联合会、Star Fruits Diffusion诉欧盟知识产权局(案件C-226/15 P),2016年4月13日

The Advocate General has provided his opinion in a case concerning seemingly conflicting decisions by the EU trade mark Court in Brussels and the Board of Appeal at the EUIPO regarding likelihood of confusion.

In doing so, the Advocate general has suggested that the principle of res judicata should only apply in trade mark cases where the subject matter, cause of action and parties are identical.

That said, there is an obligation the EUIPO and the Court to take account of each other’s decisions and, while possible, it should be undesirable for such authorities to reach decisions that cannot be substantively reconciled with one another.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

欧洲法院总检查顾问对于欧盟位于布鲁塞尔的商标法院和欧盟知识产权局上诉委员会出现了似乎相矛盾的判决就混淆之可能性发表了自己的看法。

其指出,只有在标的物、案由以及当事人完全一致的情况下,既判力的相关原则才能适用于商标案件。

也就是说,对于欧盟知识产权局以及商标法院而言,二者在做出决定的时候应当考虑对方的立场,而不应当做出实质上难以和对方调和的决定。

关于该决定的全文,请点击这里

Jack Wills Ltd v House of Fraser (Stores) Ltd [2016] EWHC 626 (Ch), 21 March 2016

杰克威尔有限责任公司诉弗雷泽百货有限责任公司[2016] EWHC 626 (Ch),2016年3月21日

Following a decision by the High Court in January 2014 which found that House of Fraser had infringed the Jack Wills’ pheasant trade mark, the Court has decided that House of Fraser must pay Jack Wills 41% of its net profits from sales of the infringing articles.

The court held that House of Fraser was entitled to deduct overheads from the sales of infringing products. Further, Jack Wills was only entitled to a proportion of profits from the sale of the infringing product that derived from the logo.

This case provides helpful guidance on the approach the courts take to the calculation of an account of profits in IP infringement cases.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

高等法院于2014年1月份判决弗雷泽百货侵犯了杰克威尔的野鸡商标权,并指出弗雷泽百货需要向杰克威尔支付其销售侵权商品净利润的41%。

法院认为弗雷泽百货可以从侵权商品的销售额中削减日常管理费用,且杰克威尔只是能够获得使用了其商标的侵权商品的利润的一部分。

这个案件为法院解决知识产权侵权案件的赔偿数额提供了有力的参考。

关于该决定的全文,请点击这里