[Editor's note] Like most countries and regions in the world, The rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union have important guiding significance and predictive value for understanding the legal norms of the European Union. Esabaril (ELZABURU) At the beginning of each year, typical cases of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the previous year are summarized and published, And a brief review of each case, In order to help customers and partners to understand the EU intellectual property norms. Given the importance of Chinese customers and partners, We try to publish the Chinese version of typical cases on a weekly basis, It is convenient for Chinese partners to learn the latest information in a timely manner.

　　 [background]

　　Danstar Ferment, A. B. company (Hereinafter referred to as "Danstar" ) Have an active dry (dehydration) European Patent for Yeast rehydration method, The preparatory steps used in wine production. Danstar Part of the claims were modified during the above European patent application process. specifically, Danstar Take the original claim "The composition contains 98%Weight of inactive yeast" Modify to "... 99. 3%weight... " . Productos Agrovin, S. A. company (Hereinafter referred to as "Agrovin" ) Sell a product used to supplement active dry yeast, The product trademark is ACTIMAX BIO. Danstar Sue Agrovin Infringement of the above European patent rights, Agrovin On the grounds that the disputed patents lack novelty and creativity, The counterclaim is invalid.

　　The court of first instance ruled in favor of the plaintiff's claim, Defense counterclaim dismissed, Where the defendant is sentenced to sell ACTIMAX BIO Product conformity Danstar The basic characteristics of the dry composition described in the patent claim. Appeal court dismisses Agrovin After the appeal request, Agrovin On the grounds that the appeal verdict was contrary to due process, Ask that the judgment be quashed.

　　 [conclusion]

　　After the Spanish Supreme Court, rejected Agrovin Eight grounds for the illegality of the appellate judgment process, And to "The court of Appeal dismissed his counterclaim in violation of its conclusion "European patent convention" The first 54 Articles and regulations 56 Article provision" A petition to set aside a judgment on appeal. but, The Supreme Court upheld it Agrovin An additional ground for quashing the judgment on appeal: "Breach of judgment on appeal "Spanish patent law (The first 11/1986 Bill no) " The first 60 article, "European patent convention" The first 69 Provision of article, When determining the scope of protection of the disputed patent right, The estoppel in the patent application process is not considered" . The Supreme Court also held that, When the appellate court decided that the patent in question was infringed, Failure to fully consider all relevant factors, It is improper application of law, violate "Spanish patent law" The first 50 Provision of article. Although the European patent application in question did say so in the original claim "A dry composition used to rehydrate active yeast, include 98%Weight of inactive yeast" , But in the patent application process, Danstar The scope of its patent protection is limited and modified, Increase the weight ratio to 99. 3%. Agrovin The non-active yeast weight ratio of the product composition is 98%, Rather than 99. 3%, Therefore, The scope of rights protection of dried inactive yeast compositions not falling under the disputed European patent. The Supreme Court held that, "In the determination of infringement, All the elements of a claim should be compared one by one, obviously, The inactive yeast weight ratio of the Defendant's product is different from the content of the disputed European patent claims" .

　　simultaneously, Judgment of the Supreme Court, In the assessment of infringement, It is not necessary to consider whether embodiments in the specification of the disputed patent are patentable or bring about specific technical advances. For the purpose of resolving this dispute, Lack of creativity has nothing to do with it.

　　 [comment]

　　The Spanish Supreme Court's decision in this case was watertight, And remind us again, The significance of modification decision in the process of patent application to determine the scope of protection after patent authorization. Judgment of the Supreme Court, Submitted by the applicant to the patent authority in the course of the patent application, All declarations and restrictions that take effect, As well as other injunctions, Should be fully considered in determining the scope of patent protection.

　　compile: Liu Dan, Esabarry Legal Counsel

　　source: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property rights