Russia: Chamber rules that subject matters in inventions can be altered – if supported by features from the specification
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Russia: Chamber rules that subject matters in inventions can be altered – if supported by features from the specification

Sponsored by


Vladimir Biriulin of Gorodissky & Partners discusses a trademark dispute ruling by the Chamber of Patent Disputes, concerning amendments to invention applications

An applicant filed a patent application (No. 2018119663/03) for a ‘raw mix for making exposed ceramic tiles’, i.e. for substance. The examiner issued an official action of refusal because the subject of the invention was claimed as a ‘substance’, while only features of the composition were indicated in the application. The applicant appealed the decision of the examiner at the Chamber of Patent Disputes.

While examining the appeal and the official action, the Chamber put forward the following considerations.

The applicant indicated in the appeal that he was ready to include features in the claims characterising the temperature of baking the compound, which in the opinion of the applicant is essential for achieving the technical result, and those features had not yet been disclosed in the cited sources of information. The applicant also specified the subject matter of the invention and termed it as ‘a process for making facing ceramic products’.

The collegium of the Chamber pointed out that the earlier submitted claims for the subject matter ‘substance’ did not characterise in full the essence of the invention disclosed in the specification. They also noted that it did not contain the combination of all essential features sufficient for solving the technical problem as posed by the applicant, and for obtaining the technical result during embodiment of the invention.

The collegium also noted that there were regulations for the examination of patent applications (dated May 25 2016) to take into account. In the regulations, paragraph 86 sets forth that if an essential feature is missing in the independent claim – and that technical result described in the specification cannot be obtained without that feature but that feature is contained in the specification – the applicant may amend the claims by including that feature into the independent claim. Also, reasons should be given to confirm that feature is indeed required to obtain the sought technical result.

The collegium agreed with the applicant in that the technical essence disclosed in the application documents would rather dictate to characterise the proposed technical solution as a method of manufacturing facing ceramic products, with the use of features characterising the composition of the mixture as well, as the features characterising the combination of actions directed at obtaining those ceramic products. Substitution of one subject matter for another subject matter may be allowed in such situations during the process of examination of the application.

The Chamber of Patent Disputes agreed that additional documents with the amended claims provided by the applicant do not change the essence of the application. An additional information search was carried out according to which it was found that the invention characterised in the amended claims for a method satisfies patentability requirements for which a patent may be granted.

After careful consideration of the details pertinent to the case, the Chamber cancelled the official action of refusal and ruled to grant a patent for a ‘method of production of facing ceramic products from a batch’, with the features in the claims taken from the specification of the patent application.


Vladimir BiriulinPartner, Gorodissky & PartnersE:

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Sources debate the implications of an opinion by Delaware’s chief judge Colm Connolly that lambasted the NPE IP Edge
Five partners reveal how delays in examining trademark applications are affecting their advice to clients and how they pitch new work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Partners at Quinn Emanuel explain how walkie-talkie and real-estate analogies helped them win over a jury at the Eastern District of Texas
The heads of Malaysian firm HHQ’s new technology practice group say they can be frontline advisers on the intersection between AI, blockchain, and IP
Darren Jiron, Finnegan’s managing partner in London, discusses the firm’s growth plans and misconceptions about US firm culture
The EMEA region research cycle has commenced - do not miss this opportunity to nominate your work from 2023!
A former partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, which voted to dissolve in October, has joined McCarter & English
As ChatGPT celebrates its first birthday, we are still grappling with a multitude of IP concerns