In short
Patent invalidity is asked for from the court, and the refusal pattern of trademark invalidity does not stick to this action. The answer to where patent invalidity is asked for is the court. A trademark action looks at the grounds of refusal in Article 25 of Law No. 6769, and the Office is not a party in that action. In a patent the grounds are novelty, inventive step and ownership of the right. An article number is not pasted onto these three.
Novelty, step and ownership
Novelty looks at whether the invention was opened to the public before. Inventive step discusses a solution a person skilled in the field could not reach easily. Ownership of the right asks whom the certificate really ought to belong to. All three are read with the claims in the patent text. The class list in a trademark does not stand in for this reading. A feature that is not in the claims is not added by rote to the ground of invalidity.
The description does not widen the limit of the claims by itself. A drawing does not bring into protection an element that is not in the claims. The disclosure in the application file does not build a ground that travels outside the claims sentence. The decision separates from the petition which of the three grounds was put forward. Even if all three are written, each is read on its own. One does not complete the other by itself.
The claims limit the description
The claims limit the solution that is said to be protected. The broad account in the description does not make a feature that does not stand in the claims a measure of invalidity. The opposing document is placed beside the claims. A detail that is not in the claims is not added later to the novelty debate. Ownership of the right also asks whom the certificate was written to, without mixing that with the technical breadth of the claims.
The search report shows the documents that were found. The report is not an invalidity decision. A bulletin writing is not the judgment of this action either. The existence of the report does not by itself announce a result on novelty or inventive step. Which document conflicts with the claims is read from the text in the file. If there is no name of a document, a ground is not built.
Infringement does not complete this ground
Infringement looks at whether the claims were used without permission while protection is standing. Invalidity says that the protection ought never to have arisen. The two may come side by side in the same petition. One does not complete the other's ground by itself. The existence of use does not show that the certificate was born sound from the start. Debating the certificate does not prove use in a single sentence either.
Counsel in Ankara who builds the ground does not make the Çankaya address the place of the action. The office being in Çankaya does not choose the court of the invalidity action. The competent court does not come out of the district of the office. The name of a district is not written in place of a ground of novelty or of ownership of the right. The action is asked for from the court. A petition written to the Office is not the name of this decision.
The report is not the judgment of the action
The report lists the documents found in the examination. This list is not a court judgment. Patent invalidity does not arise by itself on the day the report came out. If the claims are not there, the report is not turned into a ground either. The list in trademark Article 25 is not the name of the patent grounds. A class list is not put in the place of inventive step.
The question of time is a separate heading. How long the protection lasted does not stand in for the claim that the certificate ought never to have arisen. Invalidity may also be debated while the certificate is standing. This sentence does not mean every certificate will fall. A result is not announced before the concrete claims and the documents in the file are read.
If all three grounds are in the petition, each is read separately with the claims. Novelty looks at whether it collides with information opened to the public. Inventive step discusses a solution a skilled person could not reach easily. Ownership of the right asks whom the certificate ought to be written to. These three are not pasted onto the articles of the refusal list in a trademark.
A writing given to the Office does not stand in for a court decision. A document in the search report does not add to the ground a feature that does not stand in the claims. If the text of the claims is not there, it is not known which solution was debated.
How the ground is built in court
The ground stands side by side with the claims presented to the court. An article number is not pasted onto the three grounds. Use by way of infringement is not counted as an invalidity decision either. The report shows the document that was found. The district of the office does not choose the court.
Conclusion
Patent invalidity is in the court. The grounds are novelty, inventive step and ownership of the right. The question of use is in patent infringement, the end of the term is in the patent term, and the trademark refusal pattern is in trademark invalidity. The frame is on the intellectual property page. The basis is the text of Industrial Property Code No. 6769. If there are no claims, a ground is not built.