National law: CPA and procedural economy

Key points

• In this national patent case from the District Court The Hague, the patentee submitted that an inventive step attack should fail because the attack started from a document which was (in its view) not the closest prior art. The Court disagrees with this argument. However, the reason they give is interesting.
  
• “An invention must be inventive in view of any document from the relevant state of the art that is a realistic starting point for the average skilled person to come to the invention. The reason for starting from the closest prior art in the assessment is purely a consideration of procedural economy: when an invention is assessed to be inventive with regard to the closest prior art, this generally also applies with regard to prior art documents which are further removed from the invention.”
  
• Cf. Szabo 1986: " Instead of taking an arbitrary starting point for the invention, as a modification of what was already specifically known, it is more reasonable and economic to select the "closest art" for the purpose. [...]  If the invention is, on the other hand, upheld in spite of the existence of the closest art, other less relevant citations need hardly be considered as starting points for such challenge[...]  An opponent may nevertheless always try to launch an attack based on a different document, and if successful, this would become the closest art in the given circumstances."  (G.S.A. Szabo, The problem and solution approach to the inventive step, E.I.P.R. 1986, 8(10), 293-303)

Disctrict Court The Hague 28 May 2020 (Sisvel vs. Oppo)

ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:4632

(translation)

Closest prior art

4.25 Sisvel further disputes that [the document] Eriksson can serve as a starting point for the inventive attack because this document cannot be regarded as the closest prior art when using the PSA. 

That defense does not make sense either. An invention must be inventive in view of any document from the relevant state of the art that is a realistic starting point for the average skilled person to come to the invention. The reason for starting from the closest prior art in the assessment is purely a consideration of procedural economy: when an invention is assessed to be inventive with regard to the closest prior art, this generally also applies with regard to prior art documents which are further removed from the invention. 

In addition, in this case Eriksson focuses on error correction mechanisms in wireless transmission using EGPRS, in particular also throughput or data rate. It also raises the question of how to increase the granularity of code rates. This is in the same technical field as the subject of the patent. The court, therefore, considers Eriksson a suitable starting point for the PSA.

(original)

meest nabij stand van de techniek
4.25. Sisvel betwist voorts dat Eriksson als uitgangspunt kan dienen voor de inventiviteitsaanval omdat dit document niet kan worden aangemerkt als dichtstbijzijnde stand van de techniek bij toepassing van de PSA. Ook dat verweer snijdt geen hout. Een uitvinding dient inventief te zijn ten opzichte van ieder document uit de relevante stand van de techniek dat een reëel uitgangspunt voor de gemiddelde vakman is om tot de uitvinding te kunnen komen. De reden om bij de beoordeling uit te gaan van de meest nabije stand van de techniek is zuiver een proceseconomische afweging: wanneer een uitvinding inventief wordt beoordeeld ten aanzien van de meest nabij stand van de techniek, geldt dit in het algemeen eveneens ten aanzien van verder van de uitvinding af liggende anticipaties. Daar komt bij dat in dit geval Eriksson ziet op foutcorrectiemechanismen bij draadloze verzending met gebruikmaking van EGPRS, in het bijzonder mede op de throughput of datasnelheid. Daarbij komt ook de vraag aan de orde hoe de granulariteit van codesnelheden14 verhoogd kan worden. Dit ligt op hetzelfde technische terrein als het onderwerp van het octrooi. De rechtbank acht Eriksson dan ook een geschikt uitgangspunt voor de PSA.