A decision of the Israeli Registrar of Patents can materially affect a company’s legal and commercial position. The Registrar may refuse a patent application, uphold an opposition to the grant of a patent, or order the cancellation of a granted patent. However, not every decision is appealable in the same manner, and disagreement with the Registrar’s technical assessment does not necessarily justify intervention by a court.
Before deciding whether to appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Patents in Israel, it is necessary to determine whether the decision concluded the proceedings or was issued during their course, identify the applicable filing deadline, and establish the legal, factual or procedural error alleged. The relevant framework is found principally in Sections 174–177 and 188–189 of the Israeli Patents Law, 5727-1967, and the applicable procedural regulations.
Recent illustrations of the distinction between technical findings and legal errors include Netfree v. Netspark (2024), concerning a patent cancellation request; Thaler v. Registrar of Patents (2025), addressing AI inventorship; and Alex Xie v. Caesarstone (2026), involving restoration of priority rights. These cases arise in different procedural settings, but demonstrate why the precise question presented on appeal matters.
Which Decisions of the Israeli Registrar of Patents Can Be Appealed?
Section 174(a) of the Patents Law provides an appeal as of right for a person adversely affected by a decision that concludes proceedings before the Registrar. This provision also covers a decision not to hear a person under Section 159.
By contrast, Section 174(b) requires leave to appeal against a different decision that does not conclude the proceedings. Leave may be granted by the court or by the Registrar.
A final decision may arise at the conclusion of a patent opposition in Israel, a patent cancellation proceeding, or proceedings concerning refusal of a patent application. A ruling on an evidentiary deadline or a particular amendment during an ongoing case may instead be interlocutory.
The distinction depends on the substantive effect of the ruling on the proceedings as a whole, not merely its title or financial importance to the parties.
Where the disputed action was taken by a patent examiner during substantive examination, Section 161 provides a mechanism for challenging the examiner’s decision or action before the Registrar. That internal review route must be distinguished from a judicial appeal against a decision of the Registrar.
Appeal as of Right or Application for Leave to Appeal?
An appeal as of right generally concerns a decision that brings the relevant proceedings to an end, such as a final ruling on a patent opposition or cancellation request. An application for leave to appeal concerns an interlocutory ruling made while the principal proceedings continue. The fact that an interim ruling seriously affects a party’s position does not, by itself, make the decision final.
The distinction was examined in Tnuva v. Strauss. During an opposition involving a patent application concerning YOLO dessert products, Tnuva sought to amend the patent specification. The Israeli Supreme Court held that the ruling on the proposed amendment did not conclude the underlying opposition. An immediate challenge therefore required leave to appeal. Alternatively, the ruling could be challenged as part of an appeal against the final decision in the opposition.
For related discussion of the substantive amendment regime, see Opposition to Amendments to a Patent Specification in Israel.
Regulation 149 of the Israeli Civil Procedure Regulations permits a court, in appropriate circumstances, to treat an application for leave to appeal as an appeal or to consider an appeal as an application for leave. This procedural flexibility should not be treated as a substitute for choosing the correct appellate route in the first place.
What Is the Deadline for Appealing a Decision of the Registrar?
The ordinary appeal period is 60 days from service of the Registrar’s decision. Regulation 192 of the Patents Regulations refers to Chapter 17 of Part B of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018, and Regulation 137(a) of those regulations prescribes the 60-day deadline. The framework also applies to applications for leave to appeal, subject to the procedural rules governing the particular application.
The date of the decision, its publication date and the date of legally effective service are not necessarily the same. Any calculation should also account for the applicable rules on court recesses and computation of time.
Where additional time is needed, an extension must be sought and justified under the applicable rules. The need to obtain instructions from a foreign client, coordinate with international counsel or prepare expert evidence does not automatically extend the deadline.
Foreign attorneys should use the current procedural provisions rather than older descriptions of the appeals process. Former Regulation 191 of the Patents Regulations was deleted, and Regulation 192 was amended in 2022. Earlier materials may therefore refer to obsolete deadlines or procedures.
Which Court Has Jurisdiction, and Who Must Be Named as Respondent?
Under Section 188(a) of the Patents Law, jurisdiction over matters under the Law, other than patent infringement actions, is assigned to the Jerusalem District Court. A 1969 order also confers jurisdiction on the Tel Aviv–Jaffa District Court. Patent infringement actions are governed by a separate jurisdictional arrangement under Section 188(b); that arrangement should not be used to determine the proper court for an appeal from the Registrar.
Section 175 governs the parties to the appeal. Each party to the proceedings before the Registrar, other than the appellant, is a respondent. If there was no other party, the Registrar is the respondent.
Thus, an appeal arising out of inter partes patent opposition proceedings requires consideration of the patent applicant and the opponent, whereas an appeal arising from refusal of a patent application during examination may have a different respondent structure.
The appeal must identify the decision challenged, the date of service and the grounds for judicial intervention. Regulations 134 and 149 of the Civil Procedure Regulations govern aspects of the appeal and leave-to-appeal application, including the presentation of reasons supporting the grant of leave.
When Will a Court Interfere with the Registrar’s Technical Findings?
The Registrar of Patents is a specialist decision-maker with legal and technological expertise. Although the courts may review the Registrar’s decisions, an important distinction exists between errors of statutory interpretation and disagreements over factual findings or expert assessments.
Questions of law are for the court to determine. In reviewing professional and factual findings, an appellate court will generally exercise restraint, without excluding intervention where the circumstances justify it.
In BioMarin v. Registrar of Patents, Tel Aviv District Court, IP Appeal 2426-06-18 (24 January 2019), the court dismissed an appeal against refusal to extend the time for reviving an abandoned patent application. The judgment considered the duration of the delay, the commercial explanation advanced and the public’s reliance interests.
In Bayer v. Unipharm, Tel Aviv District Court, IP Appeal 61570-11-21 (8 August 2023), the court declined to interfere with the Deputy Registrar’s technical findings concerning the properties of a pharmaceutical polymorph, in the absence of a sufficient basis for disturbing those findings.
In Wyeth v. Registrar of Patents, Tel Aviv District Court, IP Appeal 71499-10-18 (17 September 2020), the court did not overturn the professional assessment that the claimed invention relating to bosutinib lacked an inventive step. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the application for leave to appeal in Civil Leave to Appeal 7660/20 (23 December 2020), finding no general question or miscarriage of justice warranting another appellate review.
An appeal stating only that the Registrar “misunderstood the invention” is unlikely to provide a sufficient foundation. Effective appellate arguments identify the particular error, such as a prior-art publication that was misinterpreted, a claim feature construed incorrectly, a misapplication of the tests for novelty or inventive step, or material evidence that was not adequately addressed.
Under Section 189, the court may appoint a scientific adviser to assist in taking evidence and provide technical advice. The adviser does not participate in the final judgment. This mechanism can be significant in complex patent appeals involving specialized technologies.
Can New Evidence Be Introduced on Appeal?
Section 177 of the Patents Law gives the appellate court authority to take evidence, including evidence not previously presented before the Registrar. Regulation 193 of the Patents Regulations governs the procedure where the appellate court decides to hear such evidence.
This is a specific statutory mechanism that offers greater flexibility than might otherwise be assumed in an ordinary civil appeal. It does not, however, entitle a party automatically to submit additional expert opinions or documents omitted from the first-instance proceedings.
In Ferring v. Registrar of Patents, Tel Aviv District Court, IP Appeal 32305-11-20 (1 February 2021), the court applied Section 177 to distinguish evidence whose necessity could not reasonably have been anticipated from documents that could have been submitted to the Registrar at the appropriate time. Some additional evidence was admitted, while other documents were excluded.
In Gabay v. Aminach, which concerned a patent application for a device relating to an infant’s bed, the Israeli Supreme Court considered the special evidentiary provisions governing patent appeals. Additional evidence was also considered in proceedings involving Ogi Systems and Sarine Technologies, concerning technology used to mark diamonds.
As a practical matter, important technical and commercial evidence should normally be placed before the Registrar during the original proceedings. A party requesting permission to introduce new evidence on appeal should explain its relevance, why it was not submitted earlier and how it could affect the outcome.
Stay of Execution, Confidentiality and Preparing the Appeal
Filing an appeal does not automatically stay the operation of the decision being challenged. Regulation 145 of the Civil Procedure Regulations provides the relevant framework. Where a Registrar’s decision may produce irreversible consequences, a separate application for a stay of execution or interim relief may be necessary.
This can be especially important where the challenged decision changes the status of a patent or allows commercial activity to proceed before appellate review is completed.
Section 176 of the Patents Law provides for closed proceedings in an appeal against refusal to accept a patent application before publication under Section 16A or Section 26, whichever occurs first, unless the court orders otherwise at the appellant’s request. This protects technical information that has not yet been made public.
Before filing, counsel should examine the Registrar’s decision together with the pleadings, transcripts, expert opinions and evidentiary record. The appeal should identify the alleged error and show why correcting it would affect the relief sought. It must also be distinguished from bringing a separate patent opposition, cancellation or infringement proceeding.
Appeals against the Registrar’s decisions form part of Patent Litigation in Israel. Where the dispute concerns examination or the patent claims, the underlying Patent Prosecution Process in Israel may also be relevant.
The principal statutory provisions are Sections 174–177 and 188–189 of the Israeli Patents Law, 5727-1967, together with Regulations 192–193 of the Patents Regulations and the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Regulations. The WIPO Lex English version of the Patents Law is a reference translation; the authoritative Hebrew text and subsequent amendments must be checked.
Further analysis is available in Yonatan Drori, Patent Law (Hebrew, 2023), Chapter 10.
For assistance with an appeal against a decision of the Israeli Registrar of Patents, contact office@dwo.co.il.
