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

Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Loes van den Winkel, attorney at Arnold & Siedsma, explains why clients' enthusiasm is contagious and why her job does not mean managing fashion models
Allen & Gledhill partner Jia Yi Toh shares her experience of representing the winning team in the first-ever case filed under Singapore’s new fast-track IP dispute resolution system
In-house lawyers reveal how they balance cost, quality, and other criteria to get the most from their relationships with external counsel
Dario Pietrantonio of Robic discusses growth opportunities for the firm and shares insights from his journey to managing director
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Gift this article