{"id":502,"date":"2023-01-13T09:54:21","date_gmt":"2023-01-13T08:54:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/genip.fi\/en\/january-09-2023-client-of-genip-oy-wins-in-trademark-opposition-proceedings-copy\/"},"modified":"2023-01-13T09:56:16","modified_gmt":"2023-01-13T08:56:16","slug":"january-12-2023-market-court-decision-mao-41-2022-in-patent-opposition-proceedings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/genip.fi\/en\/january-12-2023-market-court-decision-mao-41-2022-in-patent-opposition-proceedings\/","title":{"rendered":"January 12, 2023 Market Court decision MAO:41\/2022 in patent opposition proceedings"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id='company'  class='avia-section main_color avia-section-huge avia-no-border-styling  avia-bg-style-scroll  avia-builder-el-0  avia-builder-el-no-sibling   container_wrap fullsize' style=' '  ><div class='container' ><main  role=\"main\" itemprop=\"mainContentOfPage\"  class='template-page content  av-content-full alpha units'><div class='post-entry post-entry-type-page post-entry-502'><div class='entry-content-wrapper clearfix'>\n<div class=\"flex_column av_two_third  flex_column_div av-zero-column-padding first  avia-builder-el-1  el_before_av_one_third  avia-builder-el-first  \" style='border-radius:0px; '><p><div  style='padding-bottom:35px; ' class='av-special-heading av-special-heading-h1  blockquote modern-quote  avia-builder-el-2  el_before_av_textblock  avia-builder-el-first  '><h1 class='av-special-heading-tag '  itemprop=\"headline\"  >January 12, 2023 Market Court decision MAO:41\/2022 in patent opposition proceedings<\/h1><div class='special-heading-border'><div class='special-heading-inner-border' ><\/div><\/div><\/div><br \/>\n<section class=\"av_textblock_section \"  itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/BlogPosting\" itemprop=\"blogPost\" ><div class='avia_textblock  '   itemprop=\"text\" ><p>Genip Oy represented the appellant in the patent opposition appeal case, after the Finland Patent Office had rejected an opposition. The Market Court overturned the Finland Patent Office decision. The Market Court referred to the established case law of the boards of appeal of the European patent office and concluded that it has to be assumed that the skilled person can choose between two equal alternatives, and that such a choosing is obvious for the skilled person. The Finland Patent Office presented to the Market Court that this would not be obvious for the skilled person. The decision is available at <a href=\"https:\/\/www.markkinaoikeus.fi\/fi\/index\/paatokset\/teollisjatekijanoikeudellisetasiat\/mao412022.html\">https:\/\/www.markkinaoikeus.fi\/fi\/index\/paatokset\/teollisjatekijanoikeudellisetasiat\/mao412022.html#<\/a> (in Finnish).<\/p>\n<p>Special in this case is that the technical appeal board of the European patent office maintained in decision T2587\/19-3.2.07 the parallel European patent after comparing the independent claim with the same document and dismissed the appeal. We reported about this on November 28, 2022 in the News section of our web page. However, the technical appeal board did not deal with the same embodiment disclosed in the document in contrast to the Market Court, because the objection to the patentability based on this embodiment was not raised already in the opposition proceedings (so-called preclusion). The Market Court decision based its decision on the embodiment that was studied in detail during the appeal proceedings only.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/section><br \/>\n<div  style='height:30px' class='hr hr-invisible   avia-builder-el-4  el_after_av_textblock  avia-builder-el-last '><span class='hr-inner ' ><span class='hr-inner-style'><\/span><\/span><\/div><\/p><\/div><div class=\"flex_column av_one_third  av-hide-on-mobile  flex_column_div av-zero-column-padding   avia-builder-el-5  el_after_av_two_third  avia-builder-el-last  \" style='border-radius:0px; '><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Genip Oy represented the appellant in the patent opposition appeal case, after the Finland Patent Office had rejected an opposition. The Market Court overturned the Finland Patent Office decision. The Market Court referred to the established case law of the boards of appeal of the European patent office and concluded that it has to be assumed that the skilled person can choose between two equal alternatives, and that such a choosing is obvious for the skilled person. The Finland Patent Office presented to the Market Court that this would not be obvious for the skilled person.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/genip.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/502"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/genip.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/genip.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/genip.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/genip.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=502"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/genip.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/502\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":503,"href":"https:\/\/genip.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/502\/revisions\/503"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/genip.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=502"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/genip.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=502"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/genip.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=502"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}