Key points
- The priority document is in Chinese. The PCT application was also filed in Chinese. How do we know that the applicants are the same if the Chinese characters look slightly different? What if the transcribed name in English is different?
- "the opposition division concluded that the priority document of the patent in suit was filed by "Lota (Xiamen) Industrial Co. Ltd.", whereas the PCT application of the contested patent was filed by "Xiamen Lota International Co. Ltd.", i.e. a different legal entity. The proprietor of the patent in suit was therefore not entitled to claim priority validly, and D8 [publication of the priority application] destroyed novelty of the claimed subject-matter."
- The Board: "Irrespective of the exact translation of the applicant's name into English, the Chinese characters stating the name of the applicant are identical in the priority document D8 and the corresponding PCT application D10."
- "When photographically comparing the Chinese characters of the first part of D8 and D10, no difference can be seen, as acknowledged by the opposition division. A comparison with D11, a document certified by a Chinese notary, leads to the same result."
- " The respondent [opponent] argued that even small differences in Chinese characters may considerably change the significance of a word. To illustrate this, the respondent showed a presentation (D17) highlighting the small differences between some Latin letters such as "l" and "I" and continued to highlight possible small differences in the Chinese characters of the applicant's name in D8 and D10."
- "While it is acknowledged that small differences in characters may, in certain cases, change their meaning completely, the current dispute is about whether the alleged small differences in the Chinese characters highlighted by the respondent in D8 and D10 are due to the fact that they relate to the names of different legal entities. No proof for this was submitted."
- At any rate, the present decision illustrates that determining the identity of the applicant may involve matters of judgement.
EPO
The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2023/04/t-172020-literally-photographic.html
