Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-07-16
R2843/2019-3
Contested design: 001292122-0001
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the invalidity application is rejected, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs in both instances.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision and rejects the application for a declaration of invalidity; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
B&Bartoni, spol. s r.o.via PDF extraction
Czechia (CZ)
Doubravička 18, 29430 Dolní Cetno, Czech Republic
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Hypertherm, Inc.via PDF extraction
United States (US)
P.O. Box 5010, Etna Road, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, United States of America
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
electrode for a contact-start plasma arc torch
PCT/US2007/004343 · international patent publication · disclosed 2007-08-30
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested electrode design is a component part of a complex plasma-cutting torch and is not visible in normal use, and also lacked novelty over international patent application PCT/US2007/004343.
- ›The design holder replied that the electrode is not a component part of a complex product within Article 4(2) CDR and that the prior patent drawing is not identical to the contested RCD.
- ›The Board found Article 4(2) CDR inapplicable because the electrode is not a component part of a complex product in the relevant sense, and further held that the patent drawing disclosed visible differences so novelty was preserved.
- ›The appeal succeeded; the first-instance invalidation decision was annulled and the invalidity application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberA. Szanyi Felkl
- Registrarp.o. E. Apaolaza
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deGerman | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0489/2022-3 | 2023-12-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 6 |
| R0878/2022-3 | 2023-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 6 |
| R1693/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 6 |
| R1694/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 6 |
| R1699/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 6 |
| R1696/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 6 |
| R1654/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 6 |
| R1698/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 6 |