n this browser, the site may not be displayed correctly. We recommend that You install a more modern browser.

Chrome Safari Firefox Opera IE  
print version

Vladimir Mescheriakov

Vladimir Mescheriakov
Counsels Department
send message


  • Moscow State Mining University (1967–1972)
  • Russian State Academy of Intellectual Property (1972–1974)


  • All-Union Scientific Research Institute for State Patent Examination (VNIIGPE) of the USSR State Committee for Inventions (Invention Examination Department - Control Board of Scientific and Technical Examination, 1972-1992)
  • Federal Service for Intellectual Property Rospatent (Appeal Chamber–State Secretary - Deputy Director General, 1992-2000)
  • Gorodissky and Partners since 2000


  • Russian
  • English
  • Patent law, means of individualization
  • Administrative and juridical disputes on patentability and infringement of exclusive rights
  • “Rospatent allowed the applicant to make corrections to the description of the invention «by way of relaxation»” (“Patents and Licenses. IP Rights” Magazine, № 1-2, 2024)
  • “New Rules for the Compilation and Examination of Applications for Inventions” (“Patent Attorney” Magazine, № 3, 2023)
  • “Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law as a System of Legal and Technical Aspects” (“Patent Attorney” Magazine, № 2, 2023)
  • “On the unity of the invention: continuation of the discussion” (“Patents and Licenses. IP Rights” Magazine, № 4, 2023)
  • “Utility model is out of luck” (“Patent Attorney” Magazine, № 2, 2022)
  • “How to solve the problems existing in the Russian patent law?” (“Patent Attorney” Magazine, № 1, 2022)
  • “Rules for consideration and resolution of patent disputes by the Russian PTO: administrative or quasi-judicial procedure?” (“Patent Attorney” Magazine, № 6, 2021)
  • “Application of the concept "technical result" in Russian patent law” (“Patent Attorney” Magazine, № 2, 2021)
  • “Geographic Trademarks: Registration Issues” (“Patent Attorney” Magazine, № 1, 2020)
  • “Doctrine of equivalents: in search of a methodology” (“Patent Attorney” Magazine, № 3, 2019)
  • “The technical result as a superuniversal criterion of patentability of the invention and utility model” (“Patent Attorney” Magazine, № 2, 2019)
  • “Patenting of Domestic Inventions: Current Status in the Mirror of the History” (The Electrosvyaz Magazine, № 7, 2018)
  • “The 25th Anniversary of the Institute of Utility Model: From Idea to Reality” (“Patent Attorney” Magazine, № 3, 2018)
  • “Pharmacy patent law crisis in Russia” (IP Court magazine, July 2016)
  • “The Russian PTO's regulations regarding consideration of utility model applications and their role in the strengthening crisis of utility model concept in Russia” (IP Court magazine, #12 2016)
  • “Strategic role of judicial precedents and legal opinions of IP Court” (IP Court magazine, #11 2016)
  • “First results of Intellectual Property Court’s work: peaks and valleys and a general course of development” (IP Court magazine, #10 2015)
  • “Device as the Object of the Utility Model” (IP Court magazine, #9 2015)
  • “Once again about love… to a technical result” (Parts 1-2) (“Patent attorney”, #3-#4, 2014)
  • “Magic words “the technical solution of a problem” (Parts 1-3) (“Patent attorney”, #5-#6, 2012; #1, 2013)
  • “There is only an entrance and not the right one or backroom politics of Rospatent” (Parts 1-2) (“Patent attorney”, #3-#4, 2013)
  • “Changing the technical result” (Parts 1-2) (“Patent attorney”, #3-#4, 2012)
  • “There is only an entrance and not the right one or backroom politics of Rospatent” (“Patent attorney”, #4, 2012)
  • “Chamber of Patent Disputes. Epilogue” (“Patents and Licenses”, #11, 2012)
  • “No place for disputes” (“Patents and Licenses”, #6, 2012)
  • “Application of a doctrine of equivalents in consideration of patent disputes” (“Patents and Licenses”, #5, 2012)
  • “Separate results or integrated technology?” (“Patents and Licenses”, #4, 2012)
  • “Disputes on protectability should be simple and short — as Rospatent considers” (“Patents and Licenses”, # 11, 2011)
  • “An invention — technical solution or the difficult Russian way of harmonization of patent legislation” (Parts 1-3) (“Patent attorney”, #1-#3, 2011)
  • “Utility model — pirate or outcast?” (Parts 1-3) (“Patents and Licenses”, #7-#9, 2010)
  • “The patent court, they spoke about for so long” (“Patent attorney”, # 6, 2010)
  • “They have their patent and we have ours” (Parts 1-2) (“Patent attorney”, #2-#3, 2010)


  • “Examination, specialist and other ways of proving the facts of a patent dispute requiring special knowledge” (Annual Scientific and Practical Conference “;Topical issues of IP rights protection”, Moscow, November 2023)
  • “Rules for administrative dispute resolution by the Russian PTO” (XI (XХVI) Annual Scientific and Practical Conference “Topical issues of IP rights protection”, Moscow, November 2021)
  • “New rules for administrative dispute resolution: unresolved issues” (III International scientific and practical conference “IP rights: challenges of the 21st century”, Tomsk, November 2021)
  • “On the procedure for the consideration of disputes on the protectability of industrial property in administrative procedure” (Anniversary X (XXV) Annual Scientific and Practical Conference of the Russian Chamber of Patent Attorneys “Actual issues of protection and security of intellectual property rights”, Moscow, November 2019)
  • “Technical result has become a criteria for assessment of conformity with “task solution” and “sufficiency of disclosure” requirements” (The IX (XXIV) Annual Scientific-Practical Conference of Attorneys, Kazan, November 2018)
  • “Usability of Utility Model” (16th annual seminar “IP protection strategies for successful company development”, Moscow, April 2018)
  • “Some topical patent law issues” (VIII (XXIII) Annual Conference of Patent Attorneys, Moscow Region, December 2017
  • “Granting patent invalid in part: procedure and legal consequences” (VII (XXII) Annual Conference of Patent Attorneys, Pushkin city (Leningrad region), November 2016)
  • “The updated Russian PTO; first reformatory steps” (Annual Collegial Readings “Intellectual Property: theory and practice”, St.Petersburg, June 2016)
  • “Review of the regulatory bylaw amendments” (14th annual seminar “IP protection strategies for successful company development”, Moscow, April 2016)
  • “Rights to the results of intellectual activity financed by the State” (IP Conference “The intellectual property of companies: its legal protection, valuation and marketing”, Russian Federal Nuclear Centre in the “Sarov”, Techno-park Sarov, December 2013)
  • “State and Intellectual Property. IP disputes” (Federal Cluster Summit “Legislation for hi-tech business. IP protection”, Moscow, November 2013)
  • “Peculiarities of IP subject matters use in the wake of joining WTO. Russia — problems or advantages” (seminar “IP use when exporting dual and special purpose products. Dispute and problems resolution when joining WTO”, IPRs holders Association, Minsk, Belarus, October 2013)
  • “Basic peculiarities of patent law subject matters protection and the development thereof in view of introducing amendments to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation” (regular seminar “Enforcement of IP rights in Russia” “M-Logos” Law Institute, Moscow, July 2012)
  • “Status and perspectives of the employee’s and secret inventions protection” (conference “The particulars of the intellectual property protection in Russia and abroad”, Nizhniy Novgorod region, March 2012)
  • “Development of the patent attorney institution. The innovational business and modern approach in IP protection” (“Expopriority-2011”, Moscow, December 2011)
  • “Patent examination developments according to Chapter IV of the Russian Civil Code and Rospatent administrative regulations” (7th annular seminar “IP protection strategy for company successful development”, Moscow, April 2009)
  • “Amendments to Chapter IV of the Russian Civil Code and their effect on administrative regulations of the Russian PTO” (6th annular seminar “IP protection strategy for company successful development”, Moscow, April 2008)
  • “Part IV of the Russian Civil Code: major amendments in the trademark legislation. Introduction of „commercial designation“ issue” (5th All-Russian Conference “Intellectual property: trademark protection”, Moscow, May 2007)
  • “Service invention and reward: ways to reconcile the inventor and the right holder” (5th annual seminar “IP Protection Strategies for Company Successful Development”, Moscow, April 2007)
  • “Amendments to Chapter IV of the Russian Civil Code” (seminar “Topic issues of IP legal protection”, Ekaterinburg, Perm, April 2007)
  • “Protection of exclusive rights” (4th Annual International Conference “IP: from reliable protection to efficient management”, Ekaterinburg, November 2006)
  • “Current Russian legislation in terms of IP rights infringement suppression” (2nd seminar “IP Protection Strategies for Company Successful Development”, Moscow, October 2004)
  • Participatedin drafting the Russian patent law, act “On trademarks, service marks and appellations of origin”, departmental regulatory acts, intergovernmental agreements in IP sphere.
  • Participated in State Duma working groups on working out amendments to Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, effective from 2008 and then in 2014.
  • Represented Russian and foreign companies in administrative and judicial disputes on patentability and infringement of patents on patent law objects.
  • Participates in the preparation of objections, statements and other procedural and legal documents to the Chamber for Patent Disputes, the Court for Intellectual Property Rights, as well as to courts of various levels on the most complex procedural and methodological issues of patent law.
  • Actively participates in public discussions, at conferences and in professional publications, with representatives of Rospatent and the Intellectual Property Rights Court on the settlement of procedural-legal and methodological problems of patent law, contributing to the introduction of appropriate changes in the legal framework and the formation of a correct and uniform order of its application.
  • Provides conclusions at the request of the Intellectual Property Rights Court .
A B C D E F G I K L M N O P R S T V Y Z All