Particulars for Patent Opposition
In this matter, the delegate of the Commissioner of patents dismissed multiple grounds of opposition. He did so, requiring further and better particulars for the ground of novelty raised with regards to the allegations of prior use.
Of interest here are the principles that were set down by the delegate, citing various cases and the Federal Court rules.
- An opposition need not be “clearly untenable” or “manifestly groundless” in order for it to be dismissed. An opposition may be dismissed if it is considered to have no reasonable prospects of success.
- In determining whether or not there is a real prospect of success, consideration is given as to whether there is a real rather than fanciful issue to be decided. The onus will initially be on the applicant to show that the opposition has no reasonable prospects of success, but the onus may shift to the opponent to explain its case if a real issue is not self-evident. This will not involve an in-depth consideration of the substantive opposition, but may involve sufficient analysis to determine if a prima facie case has been established.
- A dismissal will generally be inappropriate where expert evidence is required to determine an issue. However, this does not preclude dismissal of an opposition where there is a clear deficiency in the case to be argued, such as a technical divergence of a citation and the application or where an opposition involves issues of construction and expert evidence is not necessary to clarify technical terms or other matters that are in doubt.
- Evidence of an “ambivalent character” will generally be sufficient to establish a reasonable prospect of success. However, if the evidence is only one-way, or can clearly lead only to a single conclusion, then a proceeding may be dismissed. If no particulars have been provided in relation to a ground of opposition then it may be considered to have no reasonable prospects of success.
- Care must be taken not to cause an injustice to a party by dismissing an opposition.
The following points regarding the nature of the particulars are also useful:
- for documents, the relevance of the reference to the ground together with page and line references to direct the reader to the specific part of the document that is to be relied on. Also, where patent documents have been published in more than one version, then the version being relied on should be identified and if reference is made to patent family members then material facts relevant to the family member should also be clearly identified;
- for common general knowledge, a brief description of the alleged common general knowledge and identification of the person skilled in the art including brief details of any material facts needed to establish a prima facie case;
- for manner of manufacture, a brief description of the particular type of manner of manufacture, eg. a mere mixture of known ingredients, together with brief details of material facts to establish a prima facie case;
- for matters such as prior knowledge, sale, prior use, a brief description of their relevance to the ground together with a brief details of the material facts to support a prima facie case, for example, (a) the date and place of any use, (b) the person or persons to whom the invention was allegedly disclosed or sold;
- for trade marks or trade names, a brief description of the nature of the material together with a description of its relevance to the opponent's case. Of themselves, references to trade marks or trade names are meaningless particulars; it is quite possible for the constituents of a product to be changed and for the product to continue to be sold under the same trade mark or trade name;
- for section 40 matters, a brief description of the specific subject matter causing section 40 not to be satisfied, a clear statement of the specific statutory requirement and the identification of the deficient part of the specification (by reference to page and line and/or claim numbers).