Välinge Wins Appeals on Unilin Patent

Viken, Sweden, March 27, 2006--Välinge Innovation announced what it called two major victories at EPO against Unilin patents and welcomed the EPO decision to reduce the scope of the first patent considerably, and to stay the proceedings against the second patent since it contains disallowed added subject matters. At final appeal proceedings against the first Unilin European patent EP 842 763 (EP-763) on March 21, 2006, Välinge managed to reduce the main claim considerably. This patent is mainly related to a snap locking system made in one piece with the panel and a lower lip longer than the upper lip. Välinge has in several court actions and oppositions vigorously claimed, without success so far, that: • The main claim should be based on the disclosure in the first priority. • That the length of the lower lip should be limited to the floor thickness • And that snapping is only described in a planer fashion The Välinge technology is based on a lower lip, which is longer than the floor thickness and the Välinge snapping is a combination of vertical and horizontal movement. The board of appeal consisting of five examiners completely followed the Välinge arguments on all points and decided that the requested main claim is not entitled to the first priority. Unilin was therefore forced to include the feature that the lower lip should be shorter than the floor thickness and that snapping should be limited to shifting panels laterally in a planer fashion. In oppositions against this patent in 2004, Välinge succeeded in reducing the main claim from the broad initial definition that the core should be “wood based” to the limited version that the core should consist of “finely ground wood which is glued, chipboard, MDF or HDF” This means that ordinary parquet floorings with a wood core are excluded. Välinge also limited the locking system to “an interlocking free from play.“ These two reductions were maintained meaning that the original claim is now reduced with four essential features. Välinge said it was pleased that it is now finally decided that the scope of this patent is limited to such an extent that the Välinge technology and the locking systems used by Välinge licensees are outside the frame of this patent. This decision is final and cannot be appealed. Välinge is convinced that all other Unilin patents based on the same PCT application will face similar problems. On March 23, 2006, Välinge and Berry made an appeal against the second Unilin patent EP 1 024 234 This patent is based on the same PCT application as EP-763. The main claim is broader and protects all types of horizontal snap connections in HDF. As a first argument in the proceedings Välinge/Berry claimed that new matters have been included and that the proceedings should be stayed until the Enlarged Board of Appeal decides whether or not undue broadening could be corrected. The examiners followed Välinge/Berry and decided "It is found that the divisional application as filed contained added subject matter and is therefore not in line with Article 123(2). The proceedings are therefore stayed." The stay will last probably one to two years until the Enlarged Appeal Board makes a decision. There is case law saying that a patent with not allowable added subject matters cannot be corrected. In most cases it would mean that the patent is not valid. Even if the decision from the enlarged board of appeal is favourable for Unilin, it appears that this patent as well is not entitled to the first priority and that it will be reduced considerably in a same way as EP – 763 when the proceedings are reopened again after the stay.