The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings

Transcription

1 Question Q229 National Group: Hungary Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: Dr. Marcell KERESZTY (Head of the Working Committee), Dr. Daisy MACHYTKA-FRANK, Imre MOLNÁR, Dr. Tivadar PALÁGYI, Dr. Éva SOMFAI Reporter within Working Committee: Dr. Marcell KERESZTY Date: 30 March 2012 Questions The Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws. 1) What types of post-grant proceedings are available in your jurisdiction? Are post-grant proceedings available both at a patent office and at a court? Post-grant proceedings in Hungary are the following: a) Proceedings before the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office: - invalidity proceedings (first instance, further instances are before the courts); - declaration of non-infringement proceedings (first instance, further instances are before the courts); and - interpretation of patent specification (issuance of Official Opinions requested by the courts or other authorities). b) Proceedings before the courts: infringement proceedings. 2) In your country or region, may the prosecution history be taken into account for purposes of interpreting claim scope during post-grant proceedings? There is no explicit allowance in the Hungarian provisions in this respect, however, the principle of free evaluation of evidences is set out in the Hungarian procedural law, which means that the competent authority may take into account everything presented during the proceedings. So, it can not be excluded that a party presents a prosecution history evidence and its evidentiary value influences the decision. On the other hand, the Hungarian Patent Act [HUPA] (Act No. XXXIII of 1995 on the protection of inventions by patents, amended several times) stipulates in Article 24(1) that "The scope of protection conferred by a patent shall be determined by the claims. The claims 1

2 shall be interpreted on the basis of the description and the drawings.". These provisions are interpreted by at least some of the officers and judges as excluding the possibility of using other means of interpretation, e.g. prosecution history. The case law known to the Hungarian Group is generally silent on this issue. The reason for this may be that even if a prosecution history evidence is taken into account, e.g. for fine tuning the border of a claim scope, the reasoning of the decision does not necessarily address the relevant considerations. Although some cases show that the relevant authorities are reluctant to consider prosecution history evidence, there also seem to be some sporadic decisions influenced by such evidences. No established case law can be reported. On the above basis, no clear yes or no can be answered to the present question and in the lack of an established case law, answering the yes questions would be inappropriate. If the answer to question 2 is yes, please answer the following questions: a) Please explain the types of prosecution history that may be considered. For example: i. Does applicable prosecution history include amendments, arguments, or both? ii. Could applicable prosecution history include a limiting interpretation that is implied through the applicant s arguments, or would it include only explicit definitional statements? iii. Does applicable prosecution history include only amendments to the claims, or does it also include amendments to any aspect of the disclosure? iv. Does it matter if the amendments and/or arguments are made to overcome prior art versus being made to address sufficiency or some other formal requirement? v. Does it matter if the prosecution history has the effect of broadening the interpretation of the claim, versus narrowing it? b) Does the applicability of prosecution history depend on when the prosecution history occurred? For example, does it matter if a particular statement by an applicant was made during initial examination as opposed to during a later invalidity proceeding? c) Does the applicability of prosecution history depend on the type of post grant proceeding, or on the authority before which the proceeding is held? For example, would prosecution history be more applicable in an infringement action at court than in a post-grant patent office invalidity proceeding? d) Is the applicability of prosecution history limited to infringement proceedings where equivalents are an issue? e) Could prosecution history from a corresponding foreign application be considered in a post-grant proceeding in your jurisdiction? If so, under what circumstances? f) Is the use of prosecution history authorized by statute or by case law in your jurisdiction? g) Explain the policy reasons for considering prosecution history during the claim interpretation process. If the answer to question 2 is no, please answer the following questions: 2

3 h) Is the disallowance of use of prosecution history mandated by statute or by case law in your jurisdiction? See our answer to question 2), second paragraph. There exists an interpretation that Article 24(1) of the HUPA represents a disallowance. i) Explain the policy reasons for not considering prosecution history during the claim interpretation process. The Hungarian Group is not aware of any declared policy in this respect. 3) Assuming that at least some countries will consider foreign prosecution history as part of claim interpretation in their jurisdictions, does this have implications for how you would handle prosecution of a patent application in your country? Is this problematic? This issue is certainly problematic. The prosecution in a given country primarily aims to achieve the broadest possible scope of protection for the invention in the light of the given circumstances and the local practice; all amendments and arguments should be submitted accordingly. On the basis of the above assumption, however, special care should be taken when drafting arguments not to include any statements that may lead to a limiting interpretation in another country. 4) In your country or region, may a patent be invalidated in post-grant proceedings on the basis of the same prior art which was taken into account by the examiner of the patent office during prosecution of the patent? If so, may the patent be invalidated on the basis of the same prior art and the same argument used by the examiner or may the same prior art only be used if it is shown that there is a new question based on some other teaching or aspect of that prior art? Yes, a patent may be invalidated in Hungary in post-grant proceedings on the basis of the same prior art which was taken into account by the examiner if it is shown that there is an other aspect of that prior art. Furthermore, the patent may be invalidated on the basis of the same prior art and the same argument used by the examiner. Proposals for harmonization The Groups are invited to put forward proposals for the adoption of harmonized rules in relation to the use of prosecution history in post-grant proceedings. More specifically, the Groups are invited to answer the following questions without regard to their national laws: 1) Is harmonization of the applicability of prosecution history in post-grant proceedings desirable? Yes. 2) Is it possible to find a standard for the use of prosecution history that would be universally acceptable? Yes. 3) Please propose a standard you would consider to be broadly acceptable for a) the types of prosecution history that should be considered, if any; and b) the type of proceeding and circumstances in which it should be considered. 3

4 The Hungarian Group considers it contrary to the public interest to allow an applicant for patent to argue, for example, for a narrow interpretation of the words or phrases of a claim during prosecution in order to distinguish over prior art, and then to later argue for a broader interpretation in support of a charge of infringement. This practice would be against the general principles of civil law, namely the principle of good faith and honesty, and the prohibition of misuse of rights (in Roman law: Venire contra factum proprium nemini licet = No one is allowed to act contrary to, or inconsistent with, one's own behavior). The Hungarian Group is not in favor of drafting a separate standard, but wishes to emphasize the importance and the applicability of the use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings with a special regard to the above general civil law principles. National Groups are invited to comment on any additional issue concerning the use of prosecution history in post-grant proceedings that they deem relevant. There seems to be a relationship between two factors in relation to prosecution history. Prosecution history seems to be widely used for claim interpretation in countries where the description and drawings are not to be brought in line with the allowed claims. This is understandable, as in such cases the description and claims generally cover a much broader field, which would open the door to an unfairly wide interpretation, if no prosecution history estoppel was applied. However, in countries where the description and drawings are to be brought in line with the allowed claims, prosecution history is usually reflected by or has an imprint in the patent document. The description and the drawings may represent a sufficient basis for claim interpretation. Such a practice may lead to a more exact scope and may eliminate the necessity of prosecution history considerations. So it serves the interest of the public and is not against the interest of the patent owner. Unfortunately, there seems to be a general trend not to apply this requirement strictly even in countries where such practice is based on statute. The Hungarian Group is in favor of encouraging the patent authorities to establish or strengthen the latter practice. Summary There is no explicit allowance in the Hungarian provisions for taking prosecution history into account for purposes of interpreting claim scope during post-grant proceedings. The principle of free evaluation of evidences set out in the Hungarian procedural law seems to allow this means of interpretation, however, there is a view among officers and judges that a provision in the Hungarian Patent Act excludes the possibility of using means of interpretation other than the description and drawings. The case law known to the Hungarian Group is generally silent on this issue. In the opinion of the Hungarian Group, the precise application of the requirement to bring the description and drawings in line with the allowed claims may lead to a more exact scope and may eliminate the necessity of prosecution history considerations. The Hungarian Group is in favor of encouraging the patent authorities to establish or strengthen this practice. Zusammenfassung In den ungarischen Rechtsvorschriften ist es nicht ausdrücklich erlaubt, im Verlauf von Verfahren nach der Patenterteilung bei der Auslegung des Schutzumfanges der Patentansprüche die Geschichte des Erteilungsverfahrens zu berücksichtigen. Es scheint, 4

5 dass das im ungarischen Verfahrensrecht dargelegte Prinzip der freien Beweiswürdigung diese Auslegung erlaubt, jedoch ist unter Prüfern und Richtern eine Ansicht verbreitet, dass eine Verfügung im Ungarischen Patentgesetz die Möglichkeit der Anwendung anderer Mittel als Beschreibung und Zeichnungen zur Auslegung ausschließe. In den der Ungarischen Landesgruppe bekannten Rechtsfällen wird nicht auf dieses Thema eingegangen. Nach Meinung der Ungarischen Landesgruppe kann die präzise Anwendung der Anforderung, wonach Beschreibung und Zeichnungen in Einklang mit den erteilten Patentansprüchen zu bringen sind, zu einem exakteren Schutzumfang führen und Erwägungen zur Geschichte des Erteilungsfahrens überflüssig machen. Die Ungarische Landesgruppe befürwortet die Einführung oder den Ausbau dieser Praxis durch die Patenterteilungsbehörden. Résumé Les dispositions hongroises ne prévoient pas de façon explicite la prise en compte de l historique de la procédure à des fins d interprétation de la portée d une revendication lors des procédures après la délivrance du brevet. Le principe de l évaluation libre des preuves, prévu par les règles de procédures hongroises, semble autoriser ce moyen d interprétation. Cependant, de l avis de certains hauts fonctionaires et de juges, une disposition de la loi hongroise sur les brevets exclut la possibilité d utiliser des moyens d interprétation autres que la description et les dessins. La jurisprudence connue par le Groupe Hongrois ne s exprime pas sur cette question. De l avis du Groupe Hongrois, l application précise de l exigence visant à aligner la description et les dessins sur les revendications accordées, peut aboutir à une portée plus exacte de la revendication, tout en éliminant la nécessité de prendre en considération l historique de la procédure. Le Groupe Hongrois est favorable à ce que l on encourage les administrations de brevets à établir ou à renforcer cette pratique. 5