The Court has decided the cassation instantiation on favor of CPEX S. A. (client of "Zuykov and partners")

"Global Mining Explosive-Russia" used the forged power of attorney and tried to become the owner of the patent for the method of marking explosives, developed by CPEX S. A, whose interests in court were represented by lawyers of the company "Zuykov and partners". In March 2017 the IP Court invalidated the previously issued patent and ordered the Federal service for intellectual property to issue a new patent for the invention indicating as the patentee company CPEX S. A. "Global Mining Explosive-Russia" appealed the above decision. However, and the Presidium of the IP Court has left the appeal without satisfaction.

The main point of this dispute is that in 2012 the "Global Mining Explosive-Russia" using forged power of attorney has tried to become the owner of the patent for the invention of CPEX S. A., whose interests were represented in the Court by the lawyers of the company "Zuykov and partners". In 2016 the Court under the results of handwriting examination, established the fact of forgery of power of attorney. According to that fact, Rospatent changed the owner of the patent invention "Method of marking of explosive substances". And the IP Court has recognized the invalidation of the transaction for the concession of CPEX S. A. rights to the patent.

Above judgment was appealed in cassation. The appellant insisted that at the end of last year the Court had violated procedural rules while making changes in the claims of CPEX S. A. and appointing forensic handwriting examination which was conducted not to the original power of attorney but to its copy.

The lawyers of the company "Zuykov and partners" representing the interests of the company CPEX S. A. in the Court, did not agree with the arguments stated in the appeal of the defendant, and justify their inconsistency.

The Presidium of the IP Court has studied the arguments of the parties and found no grounds for cancellation of the decision of the Court of first instance of 12.12.2016, and the Respondent’s cassation was dismissed.