The Commercial Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court of Ukraine considered the cassation appeal of the company Kaminion Holdings Limited in the case of a lawsuit against Olicon AB to declare the patent of Ukraine for an invention invalid in its entirety.
The Swedish company Olicon AB owns the Ukrainian patent for the invention, which was registered based on the application dated 06.03.2003.
The plaintiff, the Cypriot company Kaminion Holdings Limited, claims that this patent does not meet the conditions of patentability according to the “inventive level” criterion, and its state registration should be canceled.
Courts of first and appellate instances refused to grant the claim, justifying it by the plaintiff’s failure to prove the existence of circumstances that would confirm the defendant’s violation of his right or interest protected by law.
In its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that according to the legislation of Ukraine, every person has the right to apply to the court for the protection of his intellectual property right.
According to the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Rights to Inventions and Utility Models”, a person who asks the court to declare a patent invalid does not necessarily have to be the owner of another patent and oppose his own patent to the defendant’s patent.
Any person who believes that the corresponding patent infringes his rights and interests protected by law can file a lawsuit to declare a patent invalid. The circle of such persons is determined in each individual case, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the rules of law applicable to disputed legal relations.
Thus, any person who believes that the corresponding patent infringes his rights and interests protected by law can file a lawsuit to declare a patent invalid.
Thus, a person who asks the court to declare a patent invalid does not necessarily have to be the owner of another patent and oppose his own patent to the defendant’s patent.
At the same time, the courts of previous instances ignored the fact that according to the prescriptions of the current legislation, protection in the commercial court is subject not only to the violated subjective right but also to the interest protected by the law.
The Supreme Court canceled the previous court decisions and forwarded the case to the court of first instance for a new trial.