Sojuzpatent is the oldest leading law firm providing services in the field of IP protection in Russia and other countries, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
Sojuzpatents team of over 160 qualified specialists includes 50 registered Russian and Eurasian patent and trademark attorneys and litigation lawyers. Between them, they offer inclusive and highly practical expertise in all disciplines of science and technology.
Our clients represent about 90 countries from around the world.

Court For Intellectual Property Rights Rules in Favor of Sojuzpatent’s Client – ООО Optima

29 September 2016

The IP Court on September 29, 2016 took a decision, by which the earlier decision of Rospatent to invalidate a utility model in full was kept in force. The utility model in question protected a paint brush with a certain shape of the head. Previousely Rospatent invalidated this utility model in full on the revocation action filed by the client of Sojuzpatent, quite known Russian retail company selling a variety of products and accessories for hobby and fine arts. The utility model was invalidated as not novel basing on the earlier US industrial design patent. The IP Court agreed that the independent claim of the utility model is not novel as well as some dependent claims. Meanwhile the rightholder pleaded that Rospatent should have suggested to the rightholder to making amendments to the claims since due to earlier Ruling of the High Court, such a suggestion is rather an obligation of Rospatent than a right. Still the IP Court agreed that this obligation of Rospatent arises only in case such amendments may lead to limiting the scope of a patent or utility model claims to a solution meeting patentability requirements, i.e., should lead to granting protection to a novel utility model. Although some dependent claims of the utility model in question did contain distinguishing features, the IP Court agreed, that these distinguishing features did not influence claimed technical result and therefore should not be considered substantive features. Keeping in mind that a utility model is considered novel if its substantive features are not known from prior art, amending claims would not lead to a novel object that could be considered as patentable. Therefore the utility model in question was invalidated in full. The client was represented in court by one of the Senior Lawyers of Sojuzpatent, Ms. Tatiana Ekhlas. Earlier Ms. Irina Ozolina represented the client before Rospatent in this case.