Virgin v Premium - yet another chapter

The dispute between Virgin Atlantic Airways and Premium Aircraft Interiors has been rattling along for a while now, and has been keeping various patent attorneys, solicitors, barristers and bloggers quite busy.  Other chapters of the story involve decisions from the High Court and the Court of Appeal (a good starting point if you are interested in finding out more is this IPKat post), as well as proceedings before the EPO.  Even the Supreme Court will apparently be having a go at the matter, having granted Premium leave to appeal earlier this year.

The story relates to European patent EP1495908 concerning an aircraft seating system (right).  The patent was granted in 2007 to Virgin and designated the UK, along with various other European countries. The patent was opposed by Cathay Pacific, Airbus and Premium. The patent survived the opposition and subsequent appeal proceedings, although in an amended form. A decision to maintain the patent as amended was issued yesterday following the decision by the appeal board in T 1259/09, and a B2 publication is due to appear soon.

One argument raised by the opponents during the EPO proceedings was that the European patent should not have been granted with a GB designation, because the request for grant included the following statement (click for a larger version):

The examining division had nevertheless allowed the application to proceed to grant with the GB designation intact.  Both the opposition division and the appeal board concluded that there was nothing they could do, since the ability to correct any such errors was only in the remit of the examining division, and since Premium was not a party to the proceedings before the examining division and not entitled to appeal.  The GB designation therefore stood. There was nothing further the opponents could do, so the only options left for them was to fight the patent in each country, which at least Premium continues to do.

Premium have now had another go at trying to get the GB designation removed, this time through the unusual step of applying for a correction under Rule 50 of the UK Patents Rules 2007.  A decision relating to this request, which resulted in a hearing at the IPO, has now been issued: BL O/281/11.  Premium argued that, since the UK was expressly excluded as a designated state by the applicant, no European patent (UK) ever existed and therefore the UK register should be corrected to reflect this.  According to Premium, nothing that Virgin or the EPO did subsequently could change the fact that there had never been a GB designation, and any suggestion that there was an EP(UK) was an error that should be corrected insofar as it appeared on the UK register.  They put forward the case of Arrow v Merck [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat) in support of their argument, as this related to a correction being made to remove a GB designation following grant by the EPO. However, as the hearing officer noted, in that case the EPO had realised there had been a mistake and issued a corrigendum afterwards.

The hearing office pointed out that the difference in this case was that the EPO had not considered there was anything it could or would do, even if it considered that there had been a mistake.  For the comptroller to come to a conclusion that any error had been made that could then be corrected, it would be necessary to look afresh at the facts considered previously by the EPO examining division and effectively come to a view on the validity of what had been done.  This would, the hearing officer considered, amount to a review of a determination by the EPO which, particularly in the context of an ex parte request for correction of the register, was not open to him. In contrast to the provisions governing revocation on patentability grounds, the comptroller had been given no power to review decisions made by the EPO, and the hearing officer could not see how he could have any sort of power to do so under the UK Act and Rules. Because there was no basis on which a correction could be made, the request was refused.

Getting an Examination Fee Refund - Nullius in Verba*

According to Article 94(1) EPC, a request for examination has to be accompanied by an examination fee for the request to be deemed filed.  The fee, according to RFees A2.6, is currently set at 1480 Euros, or 1645 Euros for the case of an international application where no supplementary search is drawn up by the EPO.  In either case this is, to many people, a not inconsiderable amount of money.

Since examination at the EPO is considered to be separate from search (even though they are nowadays increasingly merging together), RFees Article 11 allows for the situation where a refund of the examination can be made if the application is withdrawn, refused or deemed withdrawn before examination begins.  A full refund can be made if this happens before the Examining Division (ED) assumes responsibility, while a 75% refund is made if the ED have assumed responsibility but substantive examination has not begun.

According to Rule 10(2) EPC, the ED becomes responsible from the time when a request for examination has been filed.  There are therefore not many cases where a full refund would be made, although there may be many more where a partial refund could be made, for example once a search has been done and there is clearly little chance of getting anything worthwhile granted. If the refund is more important to the applicant than the application itself (in which case there is very little point continuing anyway, but that is a different story), a letter could be sent to the EPO withdrawing the application but only on condition that a refund of the examination fee is possible.  This does, however, beg the question of whether the applicant should take the ED's word for it if they state that examination has begun but the examiner has not quite finished preparing the examination report, and therefore no refund will be made.  

For most applicants, the easiest and cheapest approach when trying to get a refund would simply to be to take what comes, as any fight is bound to be more expensive than the potential refund.  For some, however, it may be a matter of principle.  This appears to be the case for Medtronic Vascular, Inc., who found the ED's statement that examination had begun unconvincing when asking for, and being refused, a refund.  After requesting and receiving a decision on the matter, in which the refund was still refused, the ED's decision was appealed.  A decision of the legal board of appeal in case J 25/10 has now issued, in which the board comprehensively castigates the ED for not behaving properly. The decision is due to appear in the Official Journal of the EPO. 

The board noted that there was "no indication whatsoever in the file showing, by reference to objective criteria, that the Examining Division had performed a concrete act of any kind which could be regarded as a start of substantive examination in the regional phase after the request for examination had been filed" (reasons point 6).  The main points in the board's decision are in the following paragraphs: 

10. The only point on which the refusal for the partial refund was then based was "that the primary examiner confirmed that he started already with substantive examination"(point 3 of the Reasons). This is no more than an unsubstantiated assertion. Article 11(b) RFees establishes clear conditions which must be fulfilled in order for a partial refund of the examination fee to be made. Whether these conditions have been fulfilled in any particular case is a question of fact. If the request is to be refused on the basis that these conditions have not been met, the Examining Division must give reasons why the conditions are not met, having established what the facts are. It is not sufficient simply to assert that a condition of a provision is not met without reference to underlying facts which objectively demonstrate that this is so. To do so would amount to an arbitrary decision which is not verifiable and goes against all legal certainty. In G 3/08 (OJ EPO 2011, 10) the Enlarged Board of Appeal said that "the predictability and verifiability of all state action are indispensable elements of a democratic legal order", these being amongst the principles which the EPO must support (point 7.2.1 of the Reasons). The Board further said: "Another essential element of a democratic legal order is the principle that a public authority is bound by law and justice. This is supplemented by the principle of uniform application of the law. Both principles are designed to ensure predictability of jurisdiction and hence legal certainty by preventing arbitrariness" (point 7.2.3. of the Reasons). A mere assertion that a condition laid down in a legal provision is not met, without sufficient substantiation by reference to the underlying facts, violates these principles.


11. As the appellant points out, without factual information relevant to the criteria of when substantive examination began, the date of this event cannot be objectively determined. In the present case this resulted in the determination appearing to be at the discretion of the Examining Division. The appellant points out that the Examining Division had been asked for the exact date of the start of substantive examination and the criteria applied to its assessment. However, no such information was provided. Without such information, the appellant could not determine the correctness of the decision. The Board would add that without such information it also cannot determine whether the decision that substantive examination had begun was correct or not. The decision was therefore neither predictable nor verifiable, contrary to the principles set out in G 3/08 loc. cit., above.


12. It appears to the Board that the application of these principles is particularly important in the present case for two reasons. First, since the decision which the Office, via the Examination Division, is required to take involves its own financial interests, it is important for the public confidence in the Office that the decision-making process should be transparent. For the same reason it is also important that such decisions should be reviewable by the Boards of Appeal. Second, in the present case any relevant information lay solely within the knowledge of the Office. It is not a case in which, for example, a communication had been sent to the applicant, so that there were externally verifiable facts on which a decision to refund fees could be based and reviewed. This makes it important that the applicant (and the Board of Appeal) knows what the actual underlying facts are on which the decision was based.


13. In conclusion, it cannot be accepted as established in this case that substantive examination had already begun when the application was withdrawn.

As a result, the applicant had the decision to refuse the refund set aside, and had their appeal fee and 75% of their examination fee refunded.

I admire the tenacity of the applicant in this case, in what appears to be an appeal based on the principle of fair play, in that if the ED is to make any kind of decision that affects an applicant it must be reasoned and objectively supported.  This is a theme that has been playing out in other recent decisions relating to reasons for refusing applications and other requests (other examples being T 1442/09 and T 933/10), where appeal boards have also found in favour of applicants where they have found divisions of the EPO not substantiating their reasons properly. This can only be a good thing.  If applicants and their representatives are expected to follow the increasingly rigidly defined rules of the EPC, then surely the EPO divisions should themselves do the same.

*Roughly translated as "Take nobody's word for it", being the motto of the Royal Society (although they don't really follow it any more). 

Free beer and covert viewing

When an invention is defined in a claim in terms of a result to be achieved, it is often termed a 'free beer' claim, in the sense that the invention would be a good thing but the claim does not define how it is actually achieved.  When the patent specification as a whole does describe at least one way of achieving the result, the problem is one of a lack of clarity, rather than sufficiency, and can be resolved by amending the claims so that they define something the applicant has contributed to the art rather than a mere wish list of features.  At the European patent office, any free beer is typically objected to (even during Oktoberfest), and examiners will tend to require more technical features to be imported.  At the UK patent office, however, at least small amounts of free beer are more typically allowable, usually as part of a functional statement at the end of a claim, although in some cases more extensive functional language can be allowed.  Too much, however, and a UK examiner will object on grounds of lack of clarity. This was the case for application GB0904563.4 (previously published as WO 2008/035107), which has led to to the recent decision BL O/243/11, the applicant being The Secretary of State for Defence. Claim 1 of the application as-published read as follows:

1. A lens arrangement, suitable for looking through pinholes comprising a converging eyepiece type lens apparatus used without a conventional objective lens and arranged such that the lens arrangement projects a "virtual" aperture to a point in object space beyond a first end of the lens arrangement, said first end being the end of the lens arrangement closest to the subject being viewed, such that the virtual aperture limits the pencil of rays passing into the lens arrangement, wherein the lens arrangement contains no integral physical lens stop.

There are a number of obvious problems with this claim, one of which is clarity.  Following rounds of correspondence with the examiner, the claim was amended to read:

1. A lens arrangement, adapted for looking through a remote pinhole comprising a plurality of lens elements designed and configured to operate without the presence of an integral physical lens stop, such that in use the lens arrangement defines a “virtual aperture” in a pre-determined plane in object space remote from a first end of the lens arrangement, said first end being the end of the lens arrangement closest to the subject being viewed, wherein the virtual aperture acts as a remote entrance pupil in object space beyond the first end of the lens arrangement and defines a pencil of rays that passes through the lens arrangement.

The examiner considered that, even after amendment, there was too much free beer in the claims. He maintained objections that the claimed invention was unclear and was not supported by the description because the claims defined the invention in terms of the result to be achieved (i.e. a stopless lens) rather than the technical features of the lens arrangement that achieved the result, and the embodiments described did not support such a broad claim. The applicant did not manage to overcome the objections, and the matter went before a hearing officer at the IPO.

Before the hearing officer the applicant argued that, following the decision in No-Fume v Frank Pitchford & Co. Ltd. 52 RPC 231, there were many ways the invention could be implemented and the claims should not need to be limited to only one set of specific parameters. According to the applicant, conventional thinking was that a physical lens stop would be required. The lens arrangement of the invention made this redundant through the creation of a virtual aperture in the object space of the arrangement. The hearing officer accepted that the meaning of the term "virtual aperture" was sufficiently clear, but then went on to point out that the application outlined the features of the invention as being equivalent to using a conventional converging telescope eyepiece in reverse (as for example in the above figure).

As a result, the apparatus claims did not define the invention sufficiently to avoid reading directly on to an already known telescope eyepiece. The fact that the claims indicated that the lens arrangement was adapted for looking through a remote pinhole only specified how the lens arrangement could be used in practice, but did not distinguish the arrangement over a conventional telescope eyepiece. Specifying that the arrangement was designed and configured to provide the desired effect would, following Kirin-Amgen, only be allowable if the product itself was novel and inventive. The claimed invention did not therefore meet the requirements of section 14(5)(a) and (b) in that it did not define the invention and was not clear.

Although the claims in the form discussed were not allowable, the hearing officer allowed the applicant another opportunity to submit further amendments by extending the compliance period. As of today, it looks (thanks to the IPO's Ipsum file inspection service) like the application is still not quite finished.

As far as I can see, the lesson to be learned is to be careful with relying on functional definitions unless you have plenty of backup definitions that are more grounded in technical features of the invention.  It is probably not enough to have a myriad differently defined specific embodiments unless you have some overarching technical definitions to tie at least some of them together because the only option you might end up with could be a single narrow one. It is easy with hindsight to see this being a problem; the clever trick is to spot it in advance.

Rule 126 EPC & deemed delivery

As part of my day job in the real world I have been looking into how Rule 126 EPC is interpreted, and in particular what is meant by Rule 126(2), which states:

"Where notification is effected by registered letter, whether or not with advice of delivery, such letter shall be deemed to be delivered to the addressee on the tenth day following its posting, unless it has failed to reach the addressee or has reached him at a later date; in the event of any dispute, it shall be incumbent on the European Patent Office to establish that the letter has reached its destination or to establish the date on which the letter was delivered to the addressee, as the case may be."

It would be impolite of me to go into the particular details of why this is of interest, at least while the issue is still alive (an appeal is currently pending). I shall just say that someone has been attempting to put a somewhat unconventional interpretation on Rule 126(2) in an apparent attempt to get themselves out of a hole. Fortunately this someone does not work where I do.

The conventional interpretation of the "ten day rule", as it is usually known, is that the deadline for responding to a communication from the EPO where Rule 126(2) applies (i.e. a due date that is specified as running from notification of the communication) is calculated by first adding 10 days to the date on the communication, then adding the appropriate number of months (bearing in mind Rule 131), then taking into account whether the resulting day is one on which the EPO is not open for business (see Rule 134, together with the EPO's holidays for 2011 here) and finally determining the actual final day on which the act required can be done, whether this is responding to an examination report, decision to refuse or whatever.

So far, so easy. If the rule is followed to the letter, there should be no doubt about what the final due date will be.  Some people do, however, still get it wrong (see here for a good example of why it is very important to do the calculations in the right order), the results of which can be catastrophic, or at least expensive and/or embarrassing.

One interesting way of getting it wrong is, as I have discovered, interpreting Rule 126(2) to mean that the notification is only effected when the actual person to whom the communication is addressed sees it. This would normally be the patent attorney representative for the application. Could it possibly be the case that the date from which a due date is calculated is when the representative first sees the communication, for example when he gets back from holiday? This is what was argued in T 743/05, which resulted from a grounds of appeal being filed late, at least according to the conventional way of interpreting Rule 126(2) (corresponding to Rule 78(2) EPC1973). The representative argued that, since the decision to revoke the patent was first seen by him on 24 May 2005, this was the date on which the four month period for filing the grounds of appeal started, even though the decision dated 12 May 2005 had been received by the representative's office on 16 May 2005.  The representative argued that the wording in Rule 78(2) "delivered to the addressee" should be interpreted as "delivered to the person to whom the notification is addressed", which was himself.  As an auxiliary, however, the representative requested re-establishment of rights under Article 122 (or restitutio in integrum, as it was then called) since, by applying the literal meaning of Rule 78(2) the representative had taken all due care and there was no reason to believe that the provision should be interpreted otherwise.

Unsurprisingly, despite the representative's valiant attempt the board of appeal was having none of it and dismissed the appeal.  The main reason behind not taking the "literal meaning" of the rule was that this "would lead to an inextricable situation which would have as a consequence uncertainty for all the users of the European patent system. The answer to the question whether notification has effectively taken place could in that case depend entirely on the honesty, goodwill or organisational skills of the professional representative" (reasons, 1.7).  The request for re-establishment also had to be refused because the claimed interpretation, being a mistake of law on the part of the representative, could not be excused given the requirements for becoming a qualified representative (all grandfathers should take note, as it unlikely they would be given any different treatment to those who have taken and passed the EQEs).  All due care had not therefore been taken by the representative.

What I wonder now is whether, given exactly the same kind of fact situation, i.e. a letter being received by a representative's office within 10 days but the named representative not actually seeing it until later, it could ever be the case that the due date for responding could be any later than the usual 10 days + x months (+r134 extra days, as required).  I think not, and would expect a referral to the enlarged board if a board of appeal was minded to decide otherwise, but would like to see what others might think if they were placed in this situation. Any ideas?

Update 12 August 2021: I notice this is my most viewed post, so I thought I would put you all out of your suspense and reveal that the case in question was T 2210/10, at which I was representing the applicant/proprietor. I won, of course.

Rigcool v Optima Solutions - some confusion over dates

How do you calculate a "period of two years beginning with the date of grant"? Does this period include the anniversary date of the date of grant or not? This was the essence of the recent case of Rigcool Limited v Optima Solutions Limited, which resulted in a pair of decisions issued on 5 May (BL O/149/11) and 1 June 2011 (BL O/182/11).  Following these decisions, the period may well not be what you previously thought it was.  This could have rather interesting (if not worrying) consequences for other periods specified in the UK Patents Act and Rules.

Applications were made by Rigcool (which was termed the pursuer because the hearing was held in Scotland by request of both parties) under sections 37 and 72 on 27 August 2010 in relation to a GB patent granted on 27 August 2008 to Optima (the defender). The issue to be decided was whether the applications had been filed out of time, because both sections specify a time limit of "the end of the period of two years beginning with the date of grant".

However, according to section 130(7), both sections were framed to have, as nearly as practicable, the same effects as Article 23.3 of the Community Patent Convention (CPC), which states that legal proceedings "may be instituted only within a period of not more than two years after the date of grant". The defender submitted that the two year period ended on the day before the second anniversary of grant, which would mean the applications were filed out of time. The pursuer did not disagree, but argued that the wording of the CPC should be worked from directly. The hearing officer agreed that, if the CPC were to be followed, the anniversary date would be included.

The pursuer argued that applying the CPC directly was consistent with Bristol Myers Squibb v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals [1999] RPC 253, in which Jacob J (as he then was) stated that "save in the rare event of a specific contention that a provision of the 1977 Act has a different meaning from a corresponding provision of a Convention, it will be better [...] to work on the basis that the corresponding provisions of the Conventions are of direct effect" (paragraph 4). From this, however, the hearing officer considered that the case was in fact one of those rare events where the UK Act did have a different meaning from a corresponding provision in the CPC. The CPC did not therefore have direct effect.

Reference was also made to the judgment in Yeda Research and Development v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings [2007] RPC 9, in which Jacob LJ stated that the court should construe section 37(5) to have the same meaning as the provision in the CPC about bringing entitlement more than 2 years after grant. In that case, however, the hearing officer noted that the argument was not about the precise start and end date of the two year period, and any difference did not appear to have been considered. The hearing officer therefore concluded that, once such a difference had been identified, the court must take a different view of the draftsman's re-writing. The wording of the Act should therefore be followed rather than the CPC in relation to the end date of the two year period. It followed that the pursuer's applications had been filed out of time, resulting in a need for the revocation action to be ruled inadmissible and no order being possible as a result of the entitlement proceedings.

The hearing officer allowed the parties to make further submissions on the question of whether, in this case, rule 107 should apply, i.e. whether the comptroller should extend the period by one day for the purpose of the proceedings. In the subsequent decision the hearing officer then considered whether the conditions for exercising discretion under rule 107 applied. According to the Court of Appeal in M's application [1985] RPC 249, the applicant had to show that the Office was guilty of an error, default or omission, that this had contributed to the failure to meet the time limit, and that the contribution played a significant part in the applicant's failure. The pursuer argued, in light of previous decisions by the Office and the Office's litigation manual and manual of patent practice, and the fact that practice in relation to trade marks had been revised in 2010 in relation to the same issue, that the Office had contributed to a general understanding that the period included the anniversary. The defender argued against the discretion being used, since there had been no error on the part of the Office and, as the manual of patent practice stated (MPP 123.10), the power should not be applied too readily but only in cases where it was warranted and only in accordance with the case law.

The hearing officer considered that the passages cited from the litigation manual and MPP did not support the pursuer's argument as much as they proposed, but neither did they support the defender's view, with the result that the manuals did not clearly point out that the second anniversary date was excluded. The hearing officer accepted that it had not been clearly Office practice to regard the second anniversary date as being outside the two year period. The Office had therefore contributed in part to the failure of the applications being filed out of time. The irregularity could therefore be rectified by extending the period by one day in the particular case. The hearing officer ordered accordingly.

It is fairly clear from this case that the IPO will need to revise their stated practice to indicate clearly that the two year period expires on the day before the anniversary date, so as to prevent this sort of thing happening again.  The issue does, however, seem to raise the fundamental question of whether the IPO have got their calculations right for other periods, because the same form of wording is used in several other places in the Act and Rules.  Here are a few examples:

• Section 2(4): 6 month period for a breach of confidence disclosure;
• Rule 30: the compliance period;
• Rule 12(3): provide name and address;
• Rule 12(9): file a translation into English (or Welsh);
• Rule 28(2): request substantive examination;
• Rule 32: request reinstatement;

If the IPO is correct in their interpretation of the 2 year period under Section 37(5), does this mean that the same interpretation should apply to all the other periods where the same wording is used?  If so, why does the IPO not follow this rule in practice (an example being the date given for requesting examination)? If not, how can the same wording be interpreted differently for different purposes? Alternatively, is the IPO wrong in their calculation of the 2 year period? Either way, something serious seems to be wrong and needs to be sorted out.

Update: Thanks to Filemot for pointing me to the trade marks tribunal practice notice that was referred to in the first of these decisions. This states in part:

"4. The term 'beginning with' requires that the publication date be included in the calculation of the opposition period (as opposed to periods starting ‘from’ where the day of the initiating event is excluded from the calculation). Explanations of the interpretation of wording in respect of time periods can be found in Trow v Ind. Coope (West Midlands) Ltd CA [1967] 2 QB 899 and Zoan v Rouamba [2000] 2 All ER 620, at paragraph 24.

5. According to the Interpretation Act 1978 a month means a calendar month. It appears from Halsbury's Laws of England that:

"When the period prescribed is a calendar month running from any arbitrary date the period expires with the day in the succeeding month immediately preceding the day corresponding to the date upon which the period starts: save that, if the period starts at the end of a calendar month which contains more days than the next succeeding month, the period expires at the end of the latter month."

6. Consequently, where an opposition is made under section 38(2), or an extension is requested to the opposition period under Rule 17(3), the opponent should ensure that it is filed, at the latest, on the day immediately preceding the day corresponding to the date two months after the date of publication. For example, a trade mark advertised in the trade mark journal on 24 September 2010 would have a latest date of 23 November 2010 by which to file an opposition on a TM7 or request an extension to the opposition period on a TM7a."

The inference from this, as applied to all other periods in the Patents Act where the words "period beginning with" are used, is that almost all are interpreted wrongly as a matter of course, in particularly by the UKIPO themselves.

Update 1/7/11: As expected, the Manual of Patent Practice for section 37 has now been updated (see here).  New section 37.20.1, in relation to the two year period under s37(5) now states:

"The reference must be made by, at the latest, the day before the second anniversary of the date of grant. This was confirmed by the Hearing Officer in Rigcool Ltd v Optima Solutions UK Ltd BL O/149/11. In this case, the reference was made two years to the day (27 August 2010) from the date of grant (27 August 2008). The Hearing Officer held that the words “the period of two years beginning with the date of the grant” meant that the period included the date of grant, and ended the day before the second anniversary of the date of grant – i.e. 26 August 2010 in this case. This is consistent with the way the Office interprets the words “beginning with” in s.25(1), relating to the term of the patent (see 25.04.1). However, the corresponding Art.23(3) of the CPC [1989] provides that entitlements proceedings may be instituted only “within a period of not more than two years after” the date on which the patent is granted. The Hearing Officer held that the plain meaning of this provision of the CPC is that the period would end on the second anniversary of the date of grant, rather than the day before. He decided that in this case where there was a clearly different meaning of the Act compared with the corresponding provision of the CPC, he was obliged to follow the wording of the Act".

There is, however, no mention of what this means for all the other places where the same wording is used.

Musion v Activ8-3D - tea making and joint tortfeasance

Once enmeshed in a patent dispute, it can be very difficult to extract yourself from it, even if the validity of the patent in question is illusory and you only admit to making the tea and doing a bit of light stapling rather than infringing the patent. This is something that all of the parties are in the process of finding out in the case of Musion Systems Ltd v Activ8 -3d Ltd & Ors, an interim decision relating to which was recently handed down by HHJ Birss in the Patents County Court.

The patent in question, GB2427708, related to a variation on a very old trick known as 'Pepper's Ghost', the principle of which dates back to Victorian times. The variation claimed in the patent related to a way of generating an illusion by projecting an image on an inclined and tensioned transparent screen (rather like in the picture shown on the right).  The patentee, Musion Systems, alleged that the four defendants, which included their rivals Activ8-3D, along with one of their directors, had been infringing the patent by making and selling systems falling within its scope.  All parties had at one point worked together but, through one reason or another, had fallen out with each other.  To add to the complications, the defendants had also fallen out with each other and gone their separate ways in producing and selling projection systems.

Two of the defendants (C2R Limited and David Dutton) did not dispute that they had done the acts claimed by the patentee, while the other two (Activ8-3D and Simon Humphreys, one of their directors) denied infringement.  Systems argued by Musion to fall within the scope of the patent had been made and installed at various times, but not necessarily by all of the defendants in each case.  It was arguable in at least some of the cases whether there had been an "offer for disposal" or the product had been made, in accordance with section 60(1)(a). The issues to be decided, as far as HHJ Birss was concerned, were whether the defendants were working together and whether two of them (Activ8 and Simon Humphreys) were liable for the acts of the third (David Dutton), but not whether the reverse was true.

A large amount of material in the form of witness statements and other evidence was gone through, which I will not go into in detail.  One key point was that David Dutton had worked with Activ8, but had then (surreptitiously, as it appears to have turned out) gone off to make and sell products under his own new company, C2R.  The question was then whether Activ8, in particular through the actions of their director Simon Humphreys, could be said to be a joint tortfeasor with Mr Dutton through assisting in the installation of any of the products argued by Musion to be infringements.  In relation to one particular installation (the 'Trilogix' installation), Mr Dutton had been assisted by Mr Humphreys, who apparently helped with some woodworking, light stapling and tea making.  HHJ Birss found that, although the installation was directed by Mr Dutton and invoiced by his company, the acts relating to the relevant Pepper's Ghost systems "were carried out pursuant to a common design between David Dutton, Simon Humphreys and Activ8" (paragraph 97 viii)).  The idea that the installation was independent of Activ8 and Mr Humphreys made no sense to HHJ Birss, and he rejected it.  As a result, the acts were carried out such that Activ8 and Mr Humphreys would be liable as joint tortfeasors if these acts turned out to be torts (which, of course, depended on the patent being valid, which was left to be decided).

All of this inevitably led to the defendants being unfortunately unable to extricate themselves from the question of whether they could be liable for infringement, leaving them with little option but to attack the patent itself for being invalid, which I gather they will be doing in the near future.  Fortunately for them, the patent, which has as yet not been tested, appears to be on ground that is not entirely steady.  For those interested in delving further, it is worth noting that a corresponding European application granted last year with narrower claims than the earlier granted GB patent has now been opposed by Activ8.  It will be interesting to see what happens once validity comes into play in the UK.  Given HHJ Birss' track record, it seems likely that the matter will be disposed of before the EPO get going. I suspect that this is one I will be coming back to after not too long.

UPDATE 10 July 2016: Goodness me, things can take an awfully long time at the EPO. Oral proceedings on the corresponding European patent have been scheduled for 28 November 2016.

Thoughts On The EP Limitation Procedure

Since the introduction of EPC 2000 on 13 December 2007, it has been possible for a proprietor to limit the claims of their granted European patent, an option that was previously only available if the patent was opposed. The limitation procedure seems, at least on the face of it, quite straightforward.  A request is made by the proprietor (or their representative) under Article 105a. Provided the limitation fee is paid and the request complies with the other requirements of Rules 90-96 EPC, the request will be accepted and a new published patent published as a B3 specification.

A question immediately then comes to mind: how long does it take for a request for limitation to be allowed? Patentees will not do such a thing on a whim, but will have a good reason for needing to amend their patent, probably to overcome a potential flaw due to prior art discovered after the patent was granted. Without limiting the patent, it might be more difficult and more expensive to use the patent against others. In such cases, infringement proceedings may already be in the proprietor's mind. Speed may therefore be of the essence.

To try to get an idea of what the answer might be, I looked at the EPO's publication server, and searched for all B3 specifications published from the end of 2007. There have to date been 110 such publications. Going through the Register entries for each of them, I entered the dates on which the request was made, when it was allowed and when the decision was made to limit the patent, after which the B3 specification would be published.

The results, shown in the chart below, are a little surprising.  The average time taken between a request for limitation and the date on which the request is allowed is 202 days, with a standard deviation of 151 days.  Taking into account the time taken between allowing the request and the date of the decision to limit the patent, the average time lengthens to 324 days, with a standard deviation of 170 days.  A typical case might therefore take a year or so before a decision is made on limitation.  This seems quite a long time, given that there is no substantive examination of a limitation request, only that it has to be a limitation of the scope of the patent.

The shortest time taken between request and allowance was for EP 1242105, which took only 33 days to be allowed.  This was, however, a request for a very simple limitation to the claims.  Perhaps this was why it didn't take very long to assess.  Unfortunately, this alone does not seem to give much of a clue as to how to get a request for limitation allowed quickly.  The longest time taken between request and allowance was for EP 1177920, which took a remarkable 987 days to be allowed, and 1056 days to be finally decided.  This one was also fairly simple, so might just have fallen down the back of a filing cabinet for a couple of years before anything was done. Who knows.

The requests in between these extremes have all sorts of other interesting features, some of which lengthen the procedure due to the proprietor's actions, others due to the EPO being slow.  The only conclusion I can reach at this point seems to be that, if you want to get your limitation allowed quickly, make it simple and straightforward to see what the limitation is (preferably by amending the B1 publication itself, so the examiner can see what you have in mind), and follow it up if nothing is heard for over a month. Other than that, it seems to be down to the usual whims of the EPO how long it will take.  Don't be surprised if it takes a year or more to get it done.
The spreadsheet used to generate the chart can be accessed via Google Documents here.