Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-02-26
R1127/2023-3
Contested design: 002014068-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder’s costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs and fees incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Meril Diagnostics Private Limitedvia PDF extraction
IN
Survey No. 135/139, Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, 396191 Vapi, India
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
CILAG GMBH INTERNATIONALvia PDF extraction
Switzerland (CH)
Gubelstrasse 34, 6300 Zug, Switzerland
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
Curved Intraluminal Stapler shown in the Ethicon Endo-Surgery product catalogue
EES Product Catalog 2010 · EES product catalogue
Curved Circular Stapler shown in the Ethicon Endo-Surgery product catalogue
EES Product Catalog 2010 · EES product catalogue
Press release announcing two new staplers for open surgical procedures at ASCRS
meddeviceonline.com press release dated 19 May 2010 · www.meddeviceonline.com · disclosed 2010-05-19
Product brochure showing the curved intraluminal stapler
The Ethicon Endo-Surgery intraluminal stapler (ILS): Optimizing Performance And Efficiency · Ethicon Endo-Surgery brochure
Printouts showing various medical staplers alleged to anticipate the contested design
www.surgicalstaplermuseum.com · www.surgicalstaplermuseum.com
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested medical stapler had been disclosed before the priority date through an Ethicon catalogue, a May 2010 press release, a brochure, an affidavit and a museum website, and therefore lacked novelty and individual character.
- ›The design holder answered that the evidence did not concretely identify the relied-on design or prove when and where it had been made available to the public before the grace period.
- ›The Board agreed that none of the catalogue, brochure, press release, affidavit or museum printouts proved a prior design had been sufficiently disclosed before 23 September 2010, and it found the website material too imprecise to identify an earlier design.
- ›Because Article 7 disclosure was not proven, the Board did not need to reach the novelty, individual-character or technical-function arguments and dismissed the appeal.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberS. Rizzo
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2585/2023-3 | 2024-08-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |