Proctor & Gamble v. Unilever
European Patent Office Technical Board of Appeal
Case No. T 167/93-3.3.1 (1996)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
Proctor & Gamble (Proctor) (defendant) submitted a patent application to the European Patent Office. After the Examining Division refused the patent, a Board of Appeal (Board 1) set aside the Examining Board’s decision. Proctor received its patent. Subsequently, the Opposition Division revoked Proctor’s patent in response to an opposition. The Opposition Division held that the subject matter of the main claim lacked novelty and that the auxiliary claims did not involve an inventive step. Proctor appealed, arguing that the issues considered by the Opposition Division were res judicata due to the previous decision by Board 1. Unilever (plaintiff) argued that the Opposition Division could disagree with a board’s decision on examination proceedings and that res judicata could only apply in cases involving the same parties.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
