Patents and bricks

Patents

In the processes of industrial property the interrelationship between different legal forms often as patents, utility models, industrial designs and "catchall" unfair competition.

And to show these combinations, interesting the judgment of the Provincial Court of Albacete 30 September 2014.

The 1 October 2004, Saturnino requests patent a brick with certain characteristics and in July 2005, Innovations sells Ceramics Ediam S.L.. (hereinafter ICE), rights of exploitation of the patent Brick. ICE is a corporation whose sole partner Saturnino. East, also requested a International Patent on the brick. At the request is told that their claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 11 were not novel. Saturnino amending document patent, eliminates the application of non-innovative claims and was finally granted patent under the new claims, in July 2007.

So began marketing ICE brick by license agreements various industrial. It also provided the license to the defendant Hermanos Díaz Redondo SL. (HDR hereinafter). Earlier 2006, Saturnino had handed a dossier with information about the patent HDR and was scheduled signing of the license agreement in May 2006.

HDR presented in fair Construtec, in October 2006, brick in dispute with the V2 brand in November 2006 presents the trademark application V2 before the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office. In addition there had been an Community design dated 2 August 2006, while patent Saturnino was granted 30 July 2007.

The Court of First Instance dismissed the application ICE against HDR and partially upheld the counterclaim filed by HDR against ICE stating that the utility model 571120-0001 Brick HDR is different from protected by patent ICE and is not an imitation or produce confusion in the market. He further states that the patents 200402347 and 2258389 are null. Condemns ICE to pay the costs of the original proceedings.

ICE stands appeal before the Provincial Court.

From the evidence examined the Provincial Court reached the following conclusions:

1.- In April- May 2006, HDR was not fully developed their own product because of having had, would be meaningless interest in brick Saturnino.

2.- Before HDR submit its version Construtec, ICE had already announced patent its magazine brick in July Conarquitectura 2006.

3.- The fact that several manufacturers contratasen licenses Saturnino denotes that was new on the market.

4.- HDR used the information obtained from Saturnino to design your own brick.

5.- Recent patent claims are different from the ICE patent German, so declared invalid in the district court revoked.

6.- The HDR Community design is similar to the object of the patent ICE so declared invalid.

Ultimately, the use of ICE partially estimated, HDR's counterclaim is dismissed, states that marketing Brick V2 incurs unfair competition and violates the right to industrial property de ICE, declaring the nullity of Community design recorded by HDR and HDR condemned to pay 180.000 euros as compensation for damages.

Consult your case now

Leave a Reply

Language


Set as default language
 Edit Translation


Subscribe to receive a book PDF


Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter



Subscribe me

* This field is required