Germany: The effects of a cooking pan
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Germany: The effects of a cooking pan

In a recent decision (Kochgefäß [Cooking pan], X ZR 81/13) the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) once again dealt with the requirements of an infringement under the doctrine of equivalence.

According to the case law of the FSC, three conditions must be satisfied if an embodiment departing from the literal meaning of a patent claim is to fall within its scope of protection. First, the embodiment must solve the problem underlying the invention with means that, while being modified, having objectively the same effect. Second, the skills of the person skilled in the art must enable him to determine that the modified embodiment with its different means has the same effect. Third, the considerations to be applied here by the person skilled in the art must be based on the semantic content of the teaching protected in the patent claim.

The decision at issue further clarifies the third condition.

The case concerns cooking pans made of a metal with a low thermal conductivity. With such cooking pans, a better distribution of the heat is achieved by applying a thermally conductive layer to the bottom of the pan. In order to protect the thermally conductive layer, it is entirely encapsulated by metal with low thermal conductivity and greater resistance to mechanical damage.

With respect to the effects that are to be achieved by the capsular base, the appeal court had held that the claim did not disclose minimum requirements of the protection against mechanical damage. Thus, the appeal court considered this as an additional effect, which does not need to be achieved by the attacked device.

This legal conclusion was found to be wrong by the FSC. Instead, the FSC held that an equivalent effect can only be assumed if all the effects according to the invention are achieved. In contrast to the appeal court´s approach, effects of essence to the invention and additional effects cannot be distinguished.

Mayer_Thomas-100

Thomas Mayer


Maiwald Patentanwalts GmbHElisenhof, Elisenstr 3D-80335, Munich, GermanyTel: +49 89 74 72 660 Fax: +49 89 77 64 24info@maiwald.euwww.maiwald.eu

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Law firms that pay close attention to their client relationships are more likely to win repeat work, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
The EMEA research period is open until May 31
Practitioners analyse a survey on how law firms prove value to their clients and reflect on why the concept can be hard to pin down
The winner of Managing IP’s Life Achievement Award discusses 50 years in IP law and how even he can’t avoid imposter syndrome
Saya Choudhary of Singh & Singh explains how her team navigated nine years of litigation to secure record damages of $29 million and the lessons learned along the way
The full list of finalists has been revealed and the winners will be presented on June 20 at the Metropolitan Club in New York
A team of IP and media law specialists has joined from SKW Schwarz alongside a former counsel at Sky
The Irish government has delayed a planned referendum on whether Ireland should join the Unified Patent Court, prompting concern about when a vote may take place
With more than 250 winners recognised during the ceremony, there are many reasons to be positive about the health of the IP industry in EMEA
Gift this article