The Patents and the Revocation Proceedings
Which patents does the project support for review?
PatentReview's current objective is to support the professional preparation and funding of revocation proceedings in Hungary relating to two interconnected European patents.
Information about the patents under review, together with the publicly available documents and our related technical and legal analyses, will be published progressively on the project website.
What are patent revocation proceedings?
Patent revocation proceedings are an official legal process in which the competent authority examines whether a granted patent satisfies the statutory requirements for patentability.
Such proceedings are a normal and important part of the patent system, ensuring that granted patents can be reviewed after grant where appropriate.
Who decides whether a patent is valid?
PatentReview does not determine the validity of a patent.
In Hungary, patent revocation proceedings are heard at first instance by the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office (HIPO). Decisions of the Office may subsequently be reviewed by the courts in accordance with applicable law.
What does patent revocation mean?
Following revocation proceedings, the competent authority may decide to:
maintain the patent as granted;
maintain the patent in amended form with revised claims; or
revoke the patent in whole or in part.
The legal consequences of any decision are determined exclusively by the applicable legislation.
Why are you seeking revocation proceedings?
During our preliminary technical and legal analysis, we identified issues which, in our view, may justify the initiation of formal revocation proceedings in relation to the two patents.
We believe there are legitimate grounds for examining whether all statutory requirements for patentability have been fully satisfied.
The resolution of these questions, however, is solely a matter for the competent authority within the formal proceedings.
Does PatentReview claim that the patents are definitely invalid?
No.
PatentReview does not assert in advance that the patents under review are invalid.
Our position is that the publicly available documents, together with our preliminary technical and legal analysis, have identified issues that may justify an official review.
The final decision can only be made by the authority or court with the appropriate legal jurisdiction.
What evidence and arguments does the project rely on?
The project relies exclusively on publicly available sources.
Our analyses are based, among other things, on:
patent specifications;
documents generated during the patent examination process;
prior art;
scientific publications;
technical and legal literature;
independent technical analyses; and
the applicable legal framework.
Why don't you publish the complete revocation submission immediately?
To preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the proceedings, certain documents can only be published at the appropriate procedural stage.
In addition, the revocation submission is expected to be a substantial document containing extensive technical and legal references together with complex professional arguments. On its own, such a document would be difficult for most readers to understand.
For that reason, our objective is not merely to publish the submission itself, but also to explain it in a way that is both accessible and technically accurate. Throughout the project, individual arguments, supporting technical material and the cited documents will also be presented through separate analyses.
All documents and project developments that may lawfully be disclosed will be published as soon as reasonably practicable.
How long are the revocation proceedings expected to take?
The duration of patent revocation proceedings depends on many factors and cannot be predicted with certainty.
Based on our current planning, we estimate that the project will run for approximately 12 to 18 months.
What happens after the revocation request is filed?
Once the request has been submitted, the competent authority will examine whether it satisfies the applicable procedural and substantive requirements.
During the proceedings, the parties may submit observations and evidence, the authority may carry out further examination where necessary, and a formal decision will ultimately be issued.
The parties have access to the legal remedies provided under the applicable legislation.
What happens if the authority does not agree with PatentReview?
PatentReview fully respects the decisions of the competent authorities and courts.
Our objective is not to achieve a predetermined outcome, but to ensure that the technical and legal issues identified are examined through the appropriate official procedures by the authorities responsible for deciding the matter.
Why is public transparency important?
PatentReview aims to ensure that the public can follow not only the final outcome of the proceedings but also, within the limits permitted by law, the official documents, technical analyses and legal arguments published during the process.
We believe that evidence-based, document-driven public information contributes to greater transparency within the patent system and helps strengthen public confidence.
Why are the proceedings being initiated in Hungary first?
The project's current funding objective is limited to the preparation and conduct of revocation proceedings in Hungary.
Depending on the outcome of the Hungarian proceedings and the financial resources available, we will consider whether similar revocation proceedings should also be initiated in other countries where the patents remain in force.
Any such decision will be announced publicly.
What does PatentReview consider a successful outcome?
PatentReview's primary objective is not to achieve a particular procedural outcome.
We consider the project successful if the technical and legal issues identified are thoroughly examined through official proceedings and if the final decision is reached following a transparent, well-documented and professionally rigorous process.
We believe that this, in itself, contributes to strengthening both the credibility of the patent system and public confidence in its operation.