Voronezh manufacturers are resolving another dispute over product rights

The Intellectual Property Rights Court confirmed Rospatent's decision to invalidate the patent for five utility models "Flexible protective mat with blocks of concrete with increased frost resistance (variants)" (No. 142443). This decision was contested by the manufacturer and owner of the disputed patent - Spetsprom 1. The objection to the grant of the patent was made by the manufacturer of Micron V LLC. After studying the objection filed by Micron V, Rospatent concluded that the group of utility models on these points does not meet the condition of patentability "novelty".

The outcome of this trial may affect the case in which Spetsprom 1 is demanding 1.1 billion rubles from Micron V for the supply of mats allegedly produced using a disputed patent. In this case, Spetsprom 1 considered that Micron had sold flexible protective mats (GZM) before May 13, 2023, when the patent expired, "with the illegal use of technical solutions" protected by the patent. Micron V, in turn, believes that its competitor is abusing the right.

Spetsprom 1 has already tried several times in the courts to recover compensation from a competitor for violating its intellectual property rights. The plaintiff lost the previous cases, and Micron V obtained the cancellation of two patents and a trademark certificate from Rospatent.

Sergey Zuykov, a patent attorney and managing partner of Zuykov and partners, considers the prospects of appealing the decision of the IP Court extremely low, since Spetsprom 1 claimed more procedural violations than it proved that its patent was new, "and this is a necessary condition." According to the expert, due to the annulment of the patent in the part on which the claim was based, the plaintiff will lose the case for 1.1 billion rubles: "If there is no patent, there is no violation."

Yuri Pylnev, Advisor to the Intellectual Property practice of Melling, Voitishkin and Partners, agrees with him. "To appeal the decision of the IP Court, very serious grounds will be required, which do not seem to exist: the court established all the relevant circumstances and substantiated its conclusions. In order to challenge the case in the presidium of the IP Court, it will be necessary to substantiate their fallacy. However, the IP Court often supports its decisions with references to the established practice of considering similar disputes, and Micron V already has positive experience challenging the plaintiff's patent with reference to the same technical conditions specified in the IP Court's decision," he explained.

Source: Kommersant